The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: yossarian22c on October 23, 2020, 12:32:49 PM

Title: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on October 23, 2020, 12:32:49 PM
A few key states (Penn, and Wisconsin) don't allow for any pre counting and very little pre processing of mail in ballots. Trump almost certainty can't win without those states. The key states we're likely to have good information on election night are Florida and NC. They allow for both pre-processing and pre-counting ballots. If Biden wins both the election is over. If Biden wins 1 of the 2 he almost certainly wins. If Trump carries both then we're likely in for a wait of a couple days until the other swing states can put out some hard numbers.

If Biden outperforms in a couple other swing states that he is within margin of error in the polls, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, and Georgia then its a massive landslide win for Biden. But with the exception of Iowa I don't have much expectation of Biden winning in any of those states.

NC, Florida, and Texas have probably already seen about 1/2 their total number of ballots cast.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: wmLambert on October 23, 2020, 02:24:33 PM
Are there any websites that are posting the up to date results as they come in? Individual States have websites, but most want an account sign-in and to log in on November 3. There were national results posted in 2016, but I don't see any up yet.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on October 23, 2020, 02:27:00 PM
Just like on election day, no results are reported until the polls close. Probably the Secretaries of state have access to a running total. Precincts only report once all votes are counted.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on October 26, 2020, 05:02:03 PM
Are there any websites that are posting the up to date results as they come in? Individual States have websites, but most want an account sign-in and to log in on November 3. There were national results posted in 2016, but I don't see any up yet.

Here's what I've found that just tracks number of votes cast.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html (https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on October 26, 2020, 06:43:30 PM
http://targetearly.targetsmart.com/
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on October 27, 2020, 09:39:17 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-joe-biden-toast-if-he-loses-pennsylvania/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-joe-biden-toast-if-he-loses-pennsylvania/)

Quote
So here’s a question we can ask with our nifty scenario generator. Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden?

No, not quite. It is close to being a must-win for Trump, who has only a 2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania. Biden, however, has a bit more margin for error. He’d have a 30 percent chance if he lost Pennsylvania

Biden should camp out in Penn for the next week like he's running for governor. He can win other ways, but Trump almost certainly can't.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on October 29, 2020, 09:41:23 AM
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/)

Looks like the race is going to come down to Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. Biden could win huge if he picks off Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas. But despite his slim polling leads in Georgia I think he's a long shot there because of the shenanigans around the touch screen voting machines in that state. Iowa is polling at a virtual tie but they are having trouble staffing polling stations in their urban centers. The 538 weighted average polling in Ohio has Biden down 1.2% and down by almost 2% in Texas. Both of those states are long shots at this point.

Best information on election night is still likely to come from Florida and NC based on their rules for processing and counting early and mail in votes. If Trump takes both we can expect to wait for a few tense days while Pennsylvania becomes the center of attention like Florida was in 2000. If Biden takes both its a clean win. If Biden takes either its an almost certain win for him unless Trump picks off something unlikely in the upper midwest.

We haven't seen any big move in the polls so far and 78 million people have already voted. Very few people undecided in the polls. I doubt we'll see as a big swing from the polls that we saw in 2016. The Hunter Biden story isn't doing what the Comey letter did for Trump in 2016.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on October 30, 2020, 11:48:09 AM
The total number of votes cast so far is 84,541,764. Which is probably a little over half the electorate. Several key swing states, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are seeing 80+% of their 2016 vote totals already cast. Texas has already exceeded their 2016 turnout.

Crossing my fingers this race doesn't end up as a replay of a combination of 2000 and 2016 with Trump getting trounced in the popular vote but the outcome of the election being determined by lawsuits coming out of Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 02, 2020, 11:49:38 PM
http://targetearly.targetsmart.com/

So according to the above site, some 87.7 million people have voted already. They're projecting 47.6% D to 41.8% R and 10.3% unaffiliated.

CBS News had a poll this past weekend suggesting 2/3rds of Trump voters intend to vote on Tuesday and have not voted yet, compared to 1/3rd for Biden.

By Targetsmart's modeling 36.6 million Republican voters have voted already. If that is only 1/3rd of Trump's base this cycle, there are potentially another 72 million Republican voters yet to vote... Which is insane when compared to 2016, or any other election is the last many decades.

Likewise, with a modeled 42 million Democrats already having voted, and another third yet to vote, there are 21 million Biden voters heading to polls on Tuesday. Which gives 108 million Trump voters to 63 million Biden voters(down 3 million from 2016 for Hillary who had 65.8 million votes--of course, uncounted is the "unaffilitaed" in the model from TargetSmart which is some 9 million additional votes which will likely split a number of ways including for Biden).

Which gives a total of 171 Million votes cast out of Pew's estimate of 233.6 Million eligible voters.

Of course, good old Gallup is predicting about normal levels of voter participation.

But I guess we'll see if Trump manages to get his 71 million voters to turn to vote in person on election day, but going from the above numbers, he might "only" need about 30 million to turn out.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 03, 2020, 12:24:59 AM
About 97-99 million have already voted:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/02/us/trump-biden-election
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html

Also, reporting from those states that track party membership of those having voted breaks it down to 45.1% Dem vs 30.5% Rep
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 03, 2020, 12:34:46 AM
http://targetearly.targetsmart.com/

So according to the above site, some 87.7 million people have voted already. They're projecting 47.6% D to 41.8% R and 10.3% unaffiliated.

CBS News had a poll this past weekend suggesting 2/3rds of Trump voters intend to vote on Tuesday and have not voted yet, compared to 1/3rd for Biden.

By Targetsmart's modeling 36.6 million Republican voters have voted already. If that is only 1/3rd of Trump's base this cycle, there are potentially another 72 million Republican voters yet to vote... Which is insane when compared to 2016, or any other election is the last many decades.

Likewise, with a modeled 42 million Democrats already having voted, and another third yet to vote, there are 21 million Biden voters heading to polls on Tuesday. Which gives 108 million Trump voters to 63 million Biden voters(down 3 million from 2016 for Hillary who had 65.8 million votes--of course, uncounted is the "unaffilitaed" in the model from TargetSmart which is some 9 million additional votes which will likely split a number of ways including for Biden).

Which gives a total of 171 Million votes cast out of Pew's estimate of 233.6 Million eligible voters.

Of course, good old Gallup is predicting about normal levels of voter participation.

But I guess we'll see if Trump manages to get his 71 million voters to turn to vote in person on election day, but going from the above numbers, he might "only" need about 30 million to turn out.

Apply a reality check. If your back of the envelope calculations show Trump winning the popular vote by 40 million votes you should assume something has gone wrong.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 01:00:39 AM
Apply a reality check. If your back of the envelope calculations show Trump winning the popular vote by 40 million votes you should assume something has gone wrong.

Well, a few things come into play there:

Voter participation in the US has been poor for decades, generations really. So simply getting people to show up and vote can produce that outcome.

And you can easily make the other numbers from polling reflect reality at the same time.

233.6 Million eligible voters. 55% support Biden, 45% support Trump, a ten point lead in Biden's favor nationally.
128.5 million potential Biden voters
105.1 million potential Trump voters.

50% turnout for Biden turns 128.5 Million into 64.25 million
100% turnout for Trump keeps 105.1 million Trump voters at 105.1 million. Trump wins by 40 million votes.

Of course, and the "napkin math" worked out to 108 million Trump voters, which would be a 2% error in the polls, indicating 47% Trump to 53% Biden in reality.. But as most biden voters in that scenario didn't bother to vote as per the typical American habit for half of America's eligible voters... Trump pulls off a landslide.

The other "Sanity check" option that can bring the range more into reality is that trump voters are lying to the pollsters, and part of those 2/3rds of Biden voters who've already voted... Actually are Trump voters. So that "2/3rds of Trump voters are yet to vote" number is wrong(but so is the Biden voter number).

Of course, as others like to keep declaring, "there is no evidence of 'shy trump voters'" so their lying to the pollsters is inconceivable.  8)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 03, 2020, 01:27:48 AM
“It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.” —L. Sprague de Camp :)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 01:43:23 AM
“It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.” —L. Sprague de Camp :)

If I was going to be specific, I'd stick to my prediction from shortly after the last election.

Trump wins the EC again, but loses the Popular vote.

But it is kind of amusing to see some polling data out there that could be used to indirectly suggest a runaway popular vote win for Trump.

A 40 million vote margin in favor of anyone is unlikely in the extreme in US Politics. On paper, it evidently does appear to be possible, but I'd be shocked to see it happen.

I'd be amazed if Trump carries the popular vote. That said, I'd be less amazed to see Biden win his election bid.

So basically I'm hoping for a Trump EC win, as I think that's the best he can pull off. But a Biden EC and popular vote win looks ever so slightly more likely based on polling. So I'm 50/50 on that. A Trump popular vote win paired with the EC vote is the stuff for derisive laughter and rolling on the floor as I watch the heads of many pundits explode trying to figure out what happened, but that's likely to be pure fantasy. Even if there is some math to show it is possible, the polling indicates it isn't probable.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 10:08:49 AM

Voter participation in the US has been poor for decades, generations really. So simply getting people to show up and vote can produce that outcome.


But would increased voter participation resulted in better elected officials?  Or does that not matter? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 10:19:04 AM
"And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon".
-Rev 16:16

"That's it, man.  Game over, man! Game over!  What the *censored* are we gonna do now?  What are we gonna do?"
-PFC William Hudson USCM

"None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm."
-Desiderius Erasmus

"Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy night"
-Margo Channing

Welcome to Ele-geddon!  The only good news is that we're going to be able to watch somebody flip the heck out tonight.  Get the popcorn ready and buckle up buttercups! 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 10:36:14 AM

Voter participation in the US has been poor for decades, generations really. So simply getting people to show up and vote can produce that outcome.


But would increased voter participation resulted in better elected officials?  Or does that not matter?

The result would likely be mixed as per usual. Republicans will likely just continue doing what they've been doing for the past 40+ years, in that scenario they won, so no need to adjust anything.

Democrats and their activists will just conclude they needed to do more to "motivate"(scare) their base into voting in sufficient numbers to counter the Republicans. So in that respect, they probably become more hyperbolic in their rhetoric, not less.

Of course, as per 2016 the major media outlets do their handful of weeks on contrition on "how did we miss this?" and "we have a bubble problem." Before returning to business as usual shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: wmLambert on November 03, 2020, 12:09:33 PM
...Republicans will likely just continue doing what they've been doing for the past 40+ years, in that scenario they won, so no need to adjust anything.

That is one summation. However; this is also about brooming the RINO's out on their ears. Trump has aimed at the Swamp, which includes RINOs and Never-Trumpers.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 03, 2020, 12:10:43 PM
I claim that the Trump supporters are the RINO's, not me.  To me that will be the next big battle in the party.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 12:55:31 PM
To me that will be the next big battle in the party.

I'm not sure how big a battle this is going to be.  If Trump loses, establishment Republicans are no longer going to have to cover for him anymore and will go back to doing what they always do.  Other than covering for Trump, people like Ryan and McConnell didn't really change.  They're still establishment Republicans and are the ones primarily responsible for any conservative policy successes during the Trump Administration. 

Come 2022, Trump may not even be an issue anymore.  The issue would be Biden and Harris and a Democratic party controlled congress.  The same goes for 2024. 

The real question is what happens to L'Orange if he loses.  Does he go gently into that good night?  I sincerely doubt it.  He may even try to run again in 2024 if he loses, though I doubt he'd have the same support.  Half his support now is just due to the fact that he won in 2016.  If he loses, he's a loser, and most Republicans, establishment or otherwise, won't want to touch him. 

The number of establishment Republican Never Trump voters is probably equal to the amount of hard core Trumpists in the Republican party, if you can get all these Never Trumpers who left the party to come back.  The core of the Republican party is still agnostic.  All they care about "will they beat the Democrats?".  So to me the real question is whether someone else takes up the mantle of anti-establishmentarian/Trumpist after Trump is gone.  I can see this happening easily.  In fact I can see many Republicans trying to frame themselves as Trump 2.0 if Trump loses. 

But the reality is that there are very few Republicans already in office that could be Trump.  He was exceptionally unique in 2016.  Somebody like Cruz could try to take over the Trump wing, but he's not Trump.  Most Never Trumpers may not like him, but would not become Never Cruzers.  Of course, there are some exceptions.  Nunes comes to mind.  Trump Jr.  Some other nut.  What is going to decide the matter is whether the establishment can designate a clear candidate before the primaries instead of splitting the establishment vote like in 2016.  If the establishment can rally around somebody like Haley, Baker, Sasse, or whomever else early, then Trump 2.0 probably won't take off. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 02:05:58 PM
Well the lines at polls here locally are longest I've seen, despite it being a blue state and one that heavily sold early voting.  Not sure how to take that.

I was never one that called out RINOs, I always figured that the Republican party was big enough for a good bit of diversity on specific policies but I've changed my mind.  Being a never Trumper, when it's a choice between the most socialist and radical platform or a Trump platform that's achieved a huge amount of what the Republican party has professed to believe in was already suspect but actually endorsing Biden seals the deal for me. 

A big chunk of politicians on both sides are nothing but Establishment politicians, they are Republicans and Democrats in name only.  I get that Trump is a threat to them because he's restoring the government to what it was supposed to be, answerable to the people and without a ruling body of Supreme Justices making laws, but they are really short sighted if they think what the Dems are ushering in is going to end with the current ruling class in charge.  That's not how socialists operate when they get power.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 02:34:23 PM
Being a never Trumper, when it's a choice between the most socialist and radical platform or a Trump platform that's achieved a huge amount of what the Republican party has professed to believe in was already suspect but actually endorsing Biden seals the deal for me.

I thought Sanders had the most socialist and radical platform.  I was that Obama?  Or was it Clinton?  I can't keep up.  Maybe it was AOC. 

It seems to me that most of the things that have been accomplished that the Republican party has professed to believe in was accomplished by evil establishment Republicans like McConnell and Ryan, not Trump.  In the meantime Trump is basically burning down the Republican party.  We had control over Congress for how long?  That's over.  Strong alliances in Europe?  That's over.  Free trade?  That's over. 

I mean, I don't know you that well Serati.  So it's kind of unfair.  But I'd sooner take the advice of someone like Admiral McRaven or General Mattis or Mitt Romney than you.  I don't know what your qualifications of character or political accomplishment are.  I know what their accomplishments are.  And I guess I'm just one of those guys who really believed that "it didn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game".  I know Jeezus doesn't give me extra points for defeating the Romans.  So for me, character matters.  It used to matter for Republicans too, back in the Clinton years.  I guess it doesn't so much anymore.  But we're all hypocrites in some way. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 03, 2020, 02:38:25 PM
It was a huge part of the Republican platform to blow up the deficit (this is before the virus relief bill). It was a part to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy?  It was a huge part to make Americans pay tariffs on goods from dozens of countries?  It was part of the platform to split up immigrant families, even illegal immigrants?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 02:39:17 PM
Being a never Trumper, when it's a choice between the most socialist and radical platform or a Trump platform that's achieved a huge amount of what the Republican party has professed to believe in was already suspect but actually endorsing Biden seals the deal for me.

I thought Sanders had the most socialist and radical platform.  I was that Obama?  Or was it Clinton?  I can't keep up.  Maybe it was AOC.

I imagine Seriati meant it in the context of Major Party Presidential Nominee on the general election ballot.

AOC can't run for PotUS just yet, still too young, Clinton ran as a corporate Democrat, and Obama was more nuanced in what he claimed he'd do. In any case with regards to Obama, not many Republicans endorsed him for PotUS.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 02:44:08 PM

I imagine Seriati meant it in the context of Major Party Presidential Nominee on the general election ballot.


What this means, in effect, is that anyone to the left of the Republican nominee on the general election ballot is MOST SOCIALIST!  Kind of like Coca Cola is the MOST TOXIC when compared to water. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 03:13:00 PM
I imagine Seriati meant it in the context of Major Party Presidential Nominee on the general election ballot.

What this means, in effect, is that anyone to the left of the Republican nominee on the general election ballot is MOST SOCIALIST!  Kind of like Coca Cola is the MOST TOXIC when compared to water.

There is a case to be made that the DNC of 2020 is more left wing than the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom.... And considering 20 years ago the Democrats were generally to the right of the Torries, that's not a small movement.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 03:25:31 PM

There is a case to be made that the DNC of 2020 is more left wing than the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom..

Are you talking about the Liberal Democrats, or the Labour Party?  Because if you say that the DNC is more left wing than the Labour Party out loud three times, Jeremy Corbyn will rise up through the nearest commode and stalk you.

On the other hand, if say say that the Torries under William Hague were to the to the left of Al Gore, Manbearpig will eat you. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2020, 03:40:27 PM

There is a case to be made that the DNC of 2020 is more left wing than the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom..

Are you talking about the Liberal Democrats, or the Labour Party?  Because if you say that the DNC is more left wing than the Labour Party out loud three times, Jeremy Corbyn will rise up through the nearest commode and stalk you.

On the other hand, if say say that the Torries under William Hague were to the to the left of Al Gore, Manbearpig will eat you.

Take it up with the New York Times?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

in 2008 they say the Dems were to the right of or the Labour in Britain, in 2012 they were to the left of Labor and remained to the left in 2016, but Labour has since overtaken the Dems, at least as of 2019, don't know about 2020 in the eyes of the NYT, as the article is from 2019.

But by that chart, today's Conservative Party of Britain is about on par with the DNC of 2000. While they're more left-wing than the DNC of 2004/2008
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 03, 2020, 04:09:38 PM
Anyway. as far as I know the current combined vote totals show Trump leading 16-10 in New Hampshire. (Combined Dixville Notch and Millsfield)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/dixville-notch-2020-results/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/dixville-notch-2020-results/index.html)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 03, 2020, 04:22:57 PM
Take it up with the New York Times?

You want me to say the NYT is often full of cac?  That's not hard.   

This manifesto project sounds like bs.  Liberals are constantly trying to say weird crap about where parties stand and coming up with all kinds of weird ways to measure it. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 04:45:52 PM
Being a never Trumper, when it's a choice between the most socialist and radical platform or a Trump platform that's achieved a huge amount of what the Republican party has professed to believe in was already suspect but actually endorsing Biden seals the deal for me.

I thought Sanders had the most socialist and radical platform.  I was that Obama?  Or was it Clinton?  I can't keep up.  Maybe it was AOC.

Yes, and Biden is nothing more than a placeholder.  He's not setting policy, he's not acting as a brake, and whatever influence he had is going to disappear almost immediately.  Assuming he even gets to pick his cabinet, rather than having them handed to him, he's not long for the office as anything other than a prop that they wheel out from time to time for show.

Quote
It seems to me that most of the things that have been accomplished that the Republican party has professed to believe in was accomplished by evil establishment Republicans like McConnell and Ryan, not Trump.

I like Ryan, I've always thought he was principled.  I would have voted for him if he hadn't dropped out before our primary.  McConnell is a pure political animal, not any different than Schumer just the opposite side of the coin.  But I'm curious what you think they accomplished?

It seemed to me that other than getting judges through approvals, Trump had to fight with them tooth and nail.  How many votes did they take to repeal Obamacare when it was safe because Obama would veto it?  Couldn't get it done AT ALL.  Tax reform, they almost derailed it.  With control of the House and the Senate they did nothing about the massive election scandal that Hilary and the deep state fobbed off on us in 2016.  I mean heck, the Dems took over the House in 2018 - thanks to Meuller's election manipulation through deliberately not releasing what was obvious to his team from the start - and since then you'd think Pelosi runs the entire government.  If she has that kind of power, what exactly were the "establishment Republicans" doing with in for the first 2 years?  Diddly squat.

Quote
In the meantime Trump is basically burning down the Republican party.

Maybe, though I think its more the media that's doing that.   I mean Trump is a racist right?  Because he said that there were good Nazi's in Charlottesville and he won't call out white nationalist.  That's been debunked hundreds of times and its still showing up.  That's not what "Trump did" that's what the media is lying about for their own goals.

The only major divergence between what the Republican's have claimed to want (and what their voters actually want) and Trump is his stance on using tariffs in international trade. 

Quote
We had control over Congress for how long?  That's over.  Strong alliances in Europe?  That's over.  Free trade?  That's over.

You make it sound like control over Congress is an end in itself.  We're not Democrats.  What's the point of "controlling" Congress and deliverying on none of your promises?  Democrats never make that mistake, they exploit every lever they have to maximize movement on policy goals.  Heck, when they lost Congress and the WhiteHouse, they still delivered on policy goals through administrative agencies that they overwhelmingly control and through national injunctions by activist district court judges that far exceeded the scope of the judicial authority.

Maybe, if you think it was Trump that cost "us" a majority, ask yourself what exactly the policies you think he screwed up are.

There's zero indication that Trump cost us alliances in Europe, the increasingly autocratic nature of the EU was already doing that behind a civil veneer.  Europe has been running a trade cold war against us for 20 years and the media won't acknowledge it. 

Free trade over?  Not unless you elect Biden and his team of socialists.  In fact, I don't even know how you can believe that one.  The world is not a free trade zone.  Every single one of our trading partners is an open or hidden trade manipulator.  For China there is not one part of their trade that is free, it's all tied into government control and support and manipulation, it's built on open theft of ideas and technology and it's all coordinated with and through their military and government goals.  Europe?  They are a hotbed of regulations that are manipulated to punish American companies, fine American companies and generally speaking extort rents from American companies to favor their own.  Trump is standing up against that, which is literally the only way to get to real free trade again.

Quote
I mean, I don't know you that well Serati.  So it's kind of unfair.  But I'd sooner take the advice of someone like Admiral McRaven or General Mattis or Mitt Romney than you.  I don't know what your qualifications of character or political accomplishment are.  I know what their accomplishments are.  And I guess I'm just one of those guys who really believed that "it didn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game".  I know Jeezus doesn't give me extra points for defeating the Romans.  So for me, character matters.  It used to matter for Republicans too, back in the Clinton years.  I guess it doesn't so much anymore.  But we're all hypocrites in some way.

And that's the biggest joke of all.  Voting against Trump is not voting for character.  Biden has little and the people behind him have less than Trump.  The idea that giving control of the WhiteHouse and Congress to the Democrats because Trump is a bad guy is insane. 

Four years in with Trump and I'm guessing you can't point to where his administration is actually causing you harm (even if you get expansive and think about harm caused to others more of that is media manipulation than reality).  Even where judges are violating the Constitution by encroaching on exclusive powers of the executive he hasn't ignored them, he's kept his team within the legal system.  He was investigated for 2 years by a team of partisan hacks for a crime invented by his political opponent that he knew he was innocent of and he not only didn't undermine that investigation he cooperated more fully with it than any President in history.  He was impeached, without any evidence tying him to wrong doing, for what appears to be an actual criminal conduct by Biden and his family that has been covered up.  Explain to me how burying that investigation, which should have been ongoing for at least 2 years if not longer, is legitimate?

Believing anyone tied to the establishment regardless of party is believing his political opponents.  RINOs are literally swamp creatures.  Put them in power all you want but they'll never deliver on the promises that get them elected, because they don't care about those issues as anything more than election fodder.  It's why Obama can be against gay marriage "to get elected" and then for gay marriage a few years later, and NO ONE believes he had a change of heart.  It's why a politician can tell people one day he opposes fracking and the next that he'd never ban it, or that she supports Israel and the next that she'd support a boycott.  Heck its why an entire Congress can get elected for years to "repeal Obamacare" and then not be able to muster the votes when they have a President that says he'll sign it.

Honestly, if you want to believe a talking mouth go right ahead, but don't expect things to get better when you listen to the very people that are self interested in not getting it done.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 03, 2020, 04:53:40 PM
Quote
And that's the biggest joke of all.  Voting against Trump is not voting for character.  Biden has little and the people behind him have less than Trump.  The idea that giving control of the WhiteHouse and Congress to the Democrats because Trump is a bad guy is insane.

Your off your game???

Are you a mind reader knowing the reasons why someone chooses vote against Trump. Just because character doesn't matter to you does not mean it doesn't matter to others.
And if someone felt strongly that Trump was a bad person handing him control of Congress might just be a valid concern.

If you think Biden is a bad man would you want him to have control of Congress?  once again your hypocrisy is showing. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 05:00:06 PM
It was a huge part of the Republican platform to blow up the deficit (this is before the virus relief bill).

This is a fair point.  Deficit reduction is a big Republican VOTER issue, it's never been proven to me to be a goal of any politician on either side.

Quote
It was a part to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy?

No.  Republican platform to cut taxes on everyone, the wealthy pay more so they benefit more when everyone's taxes go down.  Don't believe the lies on this, the Trump tax cuts disproportionately benefitted the non-wealthy as tax cuts were passed down the line to benefit everyone no matter how little taxes they paid.   Heck the NYTs even had a column admitting that it was a middle class tax cut that the Democrats had lied about so convincingly that people didn't believe it.  Trump did make one mistake there, he should have never let the IRS put out the revised schedules to allow for withholding to change.  People are apparently stupid and they would have been more persuaded by a big refund than by an actual savings.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have promised to reinstate the SALT tax deductions that are literal gift to the 1%ers.  Haven't heard you complain about that actual tax cut for the wealthy.

Quote
It was a huge part to make Americans pay tariffs on goods from dozens of countries?

It should have been.  This is one area that Trump is more correct than the establishment has ever been.  You can't have free trade without protecting it from bad actors.  The lack of sense in our trade policies has lead to massive loss of jobs and industry in this country.

Its funny, because I bet you understand why we have laws protecting us from abuses by companies with a monopoly.  Laws that prevent them from using that monopoly to take over other industries or to undermine competition by selling below costs to drive them out of business.  Yet flip into "international trade" and China can do all that and worse but so long as they don't say the word "tariff" no one blinks an eye.

Quote
It was part of the platform to split up immigrant families, even illegal immigrants?

It's part of the platform to deport illegal aliens whether they came with families or not.  This is one of those areas where the Dems have set up a system of judicial rulings that make it impossible to actually enforce our actual laws.  Every deportation involves a ridiculous amount of unnecessary process.  Families got split up for the simple reason that a judge requires that children not stay in detention even with their family, even if the facilities are appropriate.  They did that because they have increased authority over minors - which avoids the need for there to be a law that establishes this policy - and believed that the only way to comply would be to release the whole family into the US and spend years trying to deport them.

Judicial interference has made our immigration policy one of the most ridiculous in the world.  One where a President doing his Constitutional duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress is practically called a criminal.

Where is the revised immigration law?  Who gave a every district court the authority to dictate international immigration policy (that is no where required in international or US law and contradicts US law and constitutional apportionment of authority) to the US government?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 05:03:15 PM
Quote
And that's the biggest joke of all.  Voting against Trump is not voting for character.  Biden has little and the people behind him have less than Trump.  The idea that giving control of the WhiteHouse and Congress to the Democrats because Trump is a bad guy is insane.

Your off your game???

Are you a mind reader knowing the reasons why someone chooses vote against Trump. Just because character doesn't matter to you does not mean it doesn't matter to others.
And if someone felt strongly that Trump was a bad person handing him control of Congress might just be a valid concern.

If you think Biden is a bad man would you want him to have control of Congress?  once again your hypocrisy is showing.

I don't have to read minds.  The Democrats have supported open insurrection, have failed to call out political abuse and political violence, are openly endorsing political movements that have without fail led to suffering, violence and misery.  That's a terrible set of bad things.

But even on character, you have to delude yourself to ignore that virtually every Democratic politician calls people names, and not just Trump, though for Trump they've repaid everything he's said a thousand times over.  There's no character there at all to oppose him.  The only reason you can even pretend there is by selective reporting and selective consuming of news.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 03, 2020, 05:04:50 PM

  But I'd sooner take the advice of someone like Admiral McRaven or General Mattis or Mitt Romney than you. . . . I know what their accomplishments are.

Or John Kelly, John McCain, Robert Mueller, Ben Sasse, etc.  It's not just deranged liberals claiming Trump lacks honor or character to a "Never Trump" degree.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 05:10:06 PM
It's interesting that the Biden campaign has announced they could still win without winning Florida or Pennsylvania.  While undoubtedly true, you may have to wonder if that's reflective of an inner concern.

I think what's most interesting here is that if the election turn out is as high as it seems to be, the polls could be dramatically wrong in either direction.  And like the last four years it's literally all about Trump.

In a base turn out election, the more motivated base will flip the scales in its favor.  Here we have fanatical rabid pro-Trump supporters who are super excited to vote for him, and fanatical rabid Trump haters who are super excited to vote against him.  Who will turn out more? 

Biden remains an afterthought in the Trump For/Against election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 03, 2020, 05:26:25 PM
It's interesting that the Biden campaign has announced they could still win without winning Florida or Pennsylvania.  While undoubtedly true, you may have to wonder if that's reflective of an inner concern.

I think what's most interesting here is that if the election turn out is as high as it seems to be, the polls could be dramatically wrong in either direction.  And like the last four years it's literally all about Trump.

In a base turn out election, the more motivated base will flip the scales in its favor.  Here we have fanatical rabid pro-Trump supporters who are super excited to vote for him, and fanatical rabid Trump haters who are super excited to vote against him.  Who will turn out more? 

Biden remains an afterthought in the Trump For/Against election.

And somehow all these rabid pro-Trump people are afraid to tell a pollster they support Trump? Something doesn't compute there.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 03, 2020, 05:37:45 PM
Quote
And that's the biggest joke of all.  Voting against Trump is not voting for character.  Biden has little and the people behind him have less than Trump.  The idea that giving control of the WhiteHouse and Congress to the Democrats because Trump is a bad guy is insane.

Your off your game???

Are you a mind reader knowing the reasons why someone chooses vote against Trump. Just because character doesn't matter to you does not mean it doesn't matter to others.
And if someone felt strongly that Trump was a bad person handing him control of Congress might just be a valid concern.

If you think Biden is a bad man would you want him to have control of Congress?  once again your hypocrisy is showing.

I don't have to read minds.  The Democrats have supported open insurrection, have failed to call out political abuse and political violence, are openly endorsing political movements that have without fail led to suffering, violence and misery.  That's a terrible set of bad things.

But even on character, you have to delude yourself to ignore that virtually every Democratic politician calls people names, and not just Trump, though for Trump they've repaid everything he's said a thousand times over.  There's no character there at all to oppose him.  The only reason you can even pretend there is by selective reporting and selective consuming of news.

I understand how you and those on your side of the fence might see things as you describe yet I know many on the other side of the fence who see thing in the exact opposite way
Who is correct?
The statements are meaningless over generalization in my opinion and unhelpful for dialog and getting us out of this partisan mess

I have heard many a politician call people names but no one does it better then Trump. that's my opinion. Just because Johnny is a *censored* doesn't excuses others from being a *censored*. Didn't we all learn that in kindergarten.
I'm hard pressed to identify a time Trump has lost at the name calling game so not sure if that's your selective consuming of 'news' or mine.  But again a meaningless unhelpful statement that can only end in hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 05:57:48 PM
And somehow all these rabid pro-Trump people are afraid to tell a pollster they support Trump? Something doesn't compute there.

If you say so, personally I hang up on the pollsters.  I live in a state where your voter registration is already publicly available, which makes it trivially easy to track you down to a home phone number.  I have no knowledge of who is really on the other end of the line asking.  I was talking to my wife today, and she says she routinely lies to pollsters - had no idea she did that or even why.  So anecdotally, you have 2 right there that have been on multiple polls as a hang up or a dishonest responder.

As to why they lie?  If you live in a mixed blue-red area there can be literal consequences to be open about it.  You can lose clients and friends, you can have your children targeted in school both by kids and by teachers.  People have been losing their heads over politics for a while now, and the media convincing everyone that the other side is pure evil isn't helping.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 03, 2020, 06:02:58 PM
It's funny, Serati, that all these terrible things about the Democrats that you are complaining about are almost precisely what the Democrats have been complaining about Trump doing for all these years.  ;D  And, yet, you think these are reasons not to vote Democrat in this election.

Here's the bottom line, though:  everything that Trump has been able to do to help this country he has done.  The state of our country is as good as it's going to get.  Oh, sure, the economy will get better--at least until the next unexpected (for him) crisis comes along.  But do you think he can do anything about the protests and riots in cities?  He's already done what he can.  Uniting the country?  This is as good as it gets with him.  Integrity in the government?  What makes you think another one of his Ambassadors isn't going to tell a country they won't get Congressional aid if they don't investigate his opponent?  It's going to be four more years of scandals, incompetence, stupid tweets, name-calling, etc. etc. etc.

Biden might be worse, but I think it's worth a shot.  Biden is experienced, intelligent, and listens to experts like Fauci instead of threatening to fire them.  He knows how to run a country, instead of running it into the ground like Trump does with his businesses.  It probably won't be great, but it is bound to be better than the sh*t-show we've seen for the past term.

If nothing else, we won't have to hear about the latest stupid thing Trump did every single day anymore.  ;D

If you love the way things are, great, vote Trump.  But I want a change for the better.  And from everything I've seen, Biden can't possibly be much worse.  :P
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 03, 2020, 06:43:20 PM
It's funny, Serati, that all these terrible things about the Democrats that you are complaining about are almost precisely what the Democrats have been complaining about Trump doing for all these years.  ;D  And, yet, you think these are reasons not to vote Democrat in this election.

Are they though?  There's a lot of bluster about what Trump is "going to do" or how he's "destroying the Constitution" or "obviously a criminal" yet it's all panned out to what exactly?

Where has Trump trampled the Constitution, or even threatened it?  Has he promised to pack the courts?  Or add new states?  Or to make citizens out of millions of new voters and open the borders to any likely Democratic voter that can get here without any controls?  Was it Trump that's ordered lock-downs, or was it blue state governors?  Now that we know a lot more about the disease why are blue state governors and Biden still talking about new lockdowns that are unlikely to help?

Everything about the Russia investigation was flipped on its head.  You had an entire partisan apparatus that later appointed uncontrolled partisan operatives on the theory that - even though there is not ANY evidence of a crime - if they just look hard enough they'll find it.  Cause they "feel it in their bones" that he's dirty.  That's everything that we should all hate and more, and you still support it.  Yet, you can't even bother to find out the truth about what appears to be low hanging fruit in the Biden family.  Let me put it frankly, if this stuff was about the Trump's they'd be in jail, this is the literal evidence that has never existed that Meuller and his stooges abused the Constitution and the rights of American citizens to find, yet for the "good of the country(I mean the DNC -obviously the same thing)" we're going to pretend it's not real.  Obama knew Hunter was dirty.

End of day, all you really have that is factual is a poorly implemented border policy, on a border that's been violating our laws for decades.   What else?

Quote
Here's the bottom line, though:  everything that Trump has been able to do to help this country he has done.  The state of our country is as good as it's going to get.  Oh, sure, the economy will get better--at least until the next unexpected (for him) crisis comes along.

Actually no.  If Trump is President, then it tips the balance on global free trade, if Biden is elected he'll go right back to appeasement and selling out American workers to the global elite.

Biden's tax changes are going to be designed to pay back his friends, not to help the country.  He's going to increase the costs of doing business everywhere, which helps his blue state friends pretend to be competitive inside the US (but doubles down on our global inability to compete by raising ALL American prices).  He's going to reward the 1%ers openly with the SALT tax deductions, and yes he's going to raise taxes - primarily on the middle class despite his promises  because he's going to build in so  many special deals and tax breaks for his political supporters that someone like Buffet's taxes will actually go down.

Quote
But do you think he can do anything about the protests and riots in cities?  He's already done what he can.

He can, whether he will is a different question.  Fact is, the riots and protests are part of the Democratic political stategy to cause fear and intimidate voters into supporting them.  They'd be over tomorrow if Democrats enforced the laws that are on their own books as those laws are written.  Why do you prefer a system where the laws of the  people are applied for political benefits?

Quote
Uniting the country?  This is as good as it gets with him.

Agreed, our country is not uniting anytime sooner.  The left wants to tear it down not unite it, and how exactly are we to come together on that message?  But it's not going to unite if Biden wins either.  He's not going to govern from the middle.

Quote
Integrity in the government?

You mean like how the FBI has been running illegal operations against the President pretty much for four years?  How the misdeeds of the Obama administration were covered up and misclassified to prevent the true facts from being turned over to those with the power to do something about it?  Or how, that same government is filled with bureaucrats loyal to the DNC who never failed to leak information, including misinformation and down right fake stories to a willing press on anonymous basis if hurt the President?  Is that the "Intergrity" that Biden (who governed 8 years while that was being hard coded into the system) is bringing back?

The integrity that has staff at multiple executive agencies refusing to implement the policies of the President - who is our elected leader - but will have no problem doing so when it's Biden in charge?  Is that integrity when they deliberately misuse their DELEGATED authority to undermine the legitimate source of that authority?

Quote
What makes you think another one of his Ambassadors isn't going to tell a country they won't get Congressional aid if they don't investigate his opponent?

The fact that none of them did that before.  Or maybe the fact that the entire foreign "professional" service are rabid deep staters.  Unlike you I read the transcripts of their testimony.  Every American should be concerned about their views on their own authority.  They are not the proper deciders of US policy, their roles exist to implement the directives of the political branch not to undermine them.

In any event, Biden's made clear that he is directly involved in this kind of corruption.  The actual evidence showed Trump was not.

Quote
It's going to be four more years of scandals, incompetence, stupid tweets, name-calling, etc. etc. etc.

It may, but is that really more of a threat than four years of the media hiding and burying the wrong doing of President Biden and his administration, no matter how egregious, in the name of "team"?

Honestly, if hiding the truth about Biden is required to get him elected you have no basis for any moral high ground.  Trump has been vetted, revetted, and vetted again and it keeps coming up dry or fake.  The media seems to think it's vital that they not look AT ALL at Biden family deals that are corrupt on their face.

Quote
Biden might be worse, but I think it's worth a shot.  Biden is experienced, intelligent, and listens to experts like Fauci instead of threatening to fire them.

Interesting observation.  Of course Trump also listens to experts but he's smart enough to hold them to account when their advice is shoddy.  Without Trump, we're still waiting for President Clinton's or President Biden's FDA to approve the COVID test in sufficient numbers to run tests.  Neither one of them would have used political capital to demand a better result the way Trump did, neither would have got so many companies working in so many ways.  We already know that from the results of Biden's own experience.

Plus, there's a reason we have doctors as advisors and not necessarily as leaders.  Expertise in disease transmission doesn't mean expertise in dealing with everything else connected to a solution.  Shutting down the economy may have more people than it saved (if you used the same analysis you guys advocated for counting Hurricane deaths in Puerto Rico, it almost certainly did).

Quote
He knows how to run a country, instead of running it into the ground like Trump does with his businesses.

Biden's record running the economy is objectively worse than Trump's, not even a question despite the misinformation the media has pushed.  Biden has no success outside of government running anything, well unless you count the blatant graft that you refuse to look at in connection with Hunter.

Quote
It probably won't be great, but it is bound to be better than the sh*t-show we've seen for the past term.

56% of people think they're better off than four years ago.  With Biden that numbers going to drop dramatically.  So no, it wont be better sh*t-show and all.

Quote
If nothing else, we won't have to hear about the latest stupid thing Trump did every single day anymore.  ;D

Wait and see.  I don't think Trump is going to follow the model of his predecessors here.

Quote
If you love the way things are, great, vote Trump.  But I want a change for the better.  And from everything I've seen, Biden can't possibly be much worse.  :P

You're not going to get a change for the better with Biden.  Best case you'll get rose colored glasses from the media, but not even Glade plug ins will make what happens smell nice.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 03, 2020, 07:00:14 PM
Sorry, Seriati.  It's not just the media that is causing the stink in this Administration.

Go review the "Message from the President..." thread.  At least half of the posts quoting Trump are directly from the President himself via Twitter.  No filter.  No media twisting his words.  They are his own unadulterated stupidities.  No middleman required. :)

If you haven't figured out how bad this Presidency has been yet, there's no arguing with you.  You've made up your mind.  But so have I, and right now, my cat would make a better President than Donald J. Trump.  And I don't even like her that much.  ;D
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 06:37:36 AM
Damn, y'all got quiet.  I know not everybody went to bed like me at 8:30pm CT. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 04, 2020, 07:27:09 AM

Are they though?  There's a lot of bluster about what Trump is "going to do" or how he's "destroying the Constitution" or "obviously a criminal" yet it's all panned out to what exactly?

Where has Trump trampled the Constitution, or even threatened it?

A very easy example: When he said he'll try running again for a third term in 2024 after he gets reelected in 2020.

Can you show you have some self-respect Seriati and admit such an attempt would be blatantly unconstitutional? Or will you refuse to do so?

Trump wants to be a president for life like his love monkeys Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Kim and the like.

 
Quote
Has he promised to pack the courts?  Or add new states?

Neither of these are unconstitutional, especially not the latter, which frankly ought be an imperative for any democratic citizen.

Trumpists don't want Puerto Rico to become a new state, because it's not white majority, not because it'd be supposesly unconstitutional (it wouldn't)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 08:07:40 AM
Damn, y'all got quiet.  I know not everybody went to bed like me at 8:30pm CT.

I think it's we've all made our stances known and there's just not much to go on yet.

I will say having been raised in Arizona I'm feeling pretty proud of the old place right now.

Although, I think the only reason Biden took Arizona is because this election had a proposition up to legalize recreational cannabis use. I guarantee that brought out voters who otherwise wouldn't have bothered and, while they were there, *censored* Trump.

Saw people talking about how they think that contributed to Michigan in 16 as well.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 08:13:10 AM
What's funny is that Puerto Rico could have been a state a very long time ago, it's just the Puerto Ricans keep politely declining. And God forbid DC be given representatives, it's not like their population is bigger then certain Republican states who get to have *their* two Senators.

The Court thing is morally dubious, I'll grant that. And yet, not at all unConstitutional and probably could rub cheeks with the idea that an open slot in February needs to wait until after the election but one in September needs to be filled RIGHT NOW IT'S THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 08:26:28 AM
Damn, y'all got quiet.  I know not everybody went to bed like me at 8:30pm CT.

I think it's we've all made our stances known and there's just not much to go on yet.


I think the major story here is that Trump has overperformed the polls.  It's not going to be a Biden blowout.  So sorry, Greg.   :'(   It's going to be a squeaker either way.  Honestly, right now, it looks like Trump is going to win, which is a yuge story for Le Chattegrabber and his Grabbettes.  Nate Silver is still awake.  He probably looks like Bill the Cat at this point. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 08:35:08 AM
Damn, y'all got quiet.  I know not everybody went to bed like me at 8:30pm CT.

I think it's we've all made our stances known and there's just not much to go on yet.


I think the major story here is that Trump has overperformed the polls.  It's not going to be a Biden blowout.  So sorry, Greg.   :'(   It's going to be a squeaker either way.  Honestly, right now, it looks like Trump is going to win, which is a yuge story for Le Chattegrabber and his Grabbettes.  Nate Silver is still awake.  He probably looks like Bill the Cat at this point.

You really think that? Biden took AZ. It's not Cali or Texas or anything but that's eleven votes most all Trumptistas thought were solidly in their pocket. You can tell from their reactions when their own pocket media were the first to declare AZ for Biden. They were *not* happy.

No one tends to give a *censored* about Western States that don't start with C or T but these eleven votes actually dramatically shrink Trump's way to victory.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 08:45:50 AM


You really think that? Biden took AZ. It's not Cali or Texas or anything but that's eleven votes most all Trumptistas thought were solidly in their pocket. You can tell from their reactions when their own pocket media were the first to declare AZ for Biden. They were *not* happy.

No one tends to give a *censored* about Western States that don't start with C or T but these eleven votes actually dramatically shrink Trump's way to victory.

They're still counting in Arizona.  I wouldn't be surprised if Biden wins there, but he was predicted to.  More importantly, Trump won Florida, which was kind of a tossup but was still supposed to go Biden.  Instead, Trump is winning there by 3 and a half points.  The results are shifting in his favor.  He's winning in Michigan, which Biden was supposed to win by around 8 points.  He's got a yuge lead in Pennslyvania, which Biden was supposed to win by 5 points. 

Trump is currently winning.  Arizona can't make up for losing Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Right now Democrats and Biden voters need to be making their peace with gawd.  I feel for you atheists.
 There is always the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Arizona might be a good sign, but it's not over there either.  Dig in, sweethearts. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 08:51:44 AM
I'm just trying to have a polite conversation, and yet you keep condescending to me. And yet you're the one complaining about people being...atheists? Believing in God? Friendly advice, your message there is a bit confused. If you were annoyed with both of those categories I could probably give you a thumbs up.

I'm not quite sure why you think he's destined to win in Penn  or Michigan.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 08:54:36 AM
Also you're telling us all to dig in and also complaining about the lack of responses. Don't worry, sweetheart, I'm pretty sure most of us will give just the reaction you want, no matter who wins.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 08:54:58 AM
If Biden holds Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin he can escape with just taking Michigan or Penn. And the super long shot outcome right now is Nevada, Arizona and NC go to Biden with Trump getting the rest and we get a 269/269 tie.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
With all the claims about democratic voter fraud. Can the Republicans here state clearly that Trump exceeding the polls by around 4% indicates that Democrats do not engage in any type of wide spread voter fraud?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 09:05:40 AM
With all the claims about democratic voter fraud. Can the Republicans here state clearly that Trump exceeding the polls by around 4% indicates that Democrats do not engage in any type of wide spread voter fraud?

I for one think it''s obvious on the face of it that the Demoncrats cheated the vote by 6 percent.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 09:06:47 AM
Latest update shows Biden taking a slight lead in Michigan. Very good news for Biden. The Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan trio is his clearest path to a squeaker of a victory.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 09:11:29 AM
I'm just trying to have a polite conversation, and yet you keep condescending to me. And yet you're the one complaining about people being...atheists? Believing in God? Friendly advice, your message there is a bit confused. If you were annoyed with both of those categories I could probably give you a thumbs up.

I'm not quite sure why you think he's destined to win in Penn  or Michigan.

Lighten up, DJ.  I'm simply disagreeing with you.  I didn't complain about people being atheists, I expressed sympathy.  I'm not annoyed with anyone right now.  You're simply wrong.  Welcome to Ornery. 

I'm not saying Trump is DESTINED to win Pennsylvania or Michigan.  I'm saying that he's WINNING.  In this case I am able to differentiate between what IS, and what is POSSIBLE.  What IS is always more real than what is POSSIBLE.  It's POSSIBLE for Biden to still win Pennsylvania and Michigan.  But right now, Trump IS winning.  For Biden to win in Penn, he better pull out one hell of an absentee vote share.  That is possible, but it's not guaranteed. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 09:25:28 AM
Latest update shows Biden taking a slight lead in Michigan. Very good news for Biden. The Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan trio is his clearest path to a squeaker of a victory.

That escalated quickly.  I expect Biden to win Nevada and Wisconsin.  If he takes Michigan, it may be that he doesn't need Pennslyvania because he took Arizona.  It's still razor thin in Michigan, BUT, Trump is no longer WINNING.  Now Biden is. 

I don't think this changes the story that Trump won Florida, and I expect him to win Georgia and North Carolina.  Trump still overperformed the polls. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 09:25:50 AM
First of all, you demanded it so obviously because you did I'm now contractually obliged to listen up. You did afterall say thanks for that, I had trouble listening up before you came along. Thanks for your thanks!

You're up in here looking to make fun of Dems and, if they give you the opportunity, Reps due to the election. We all understand lol. You're just a lower tier *censored* unwilling to take a side and properly happy to run in there and take advantage of what did work out.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 09:27:59 AM
Please. Pick a *censored*ing lane.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 04, 2020, 09:28:56 AM
With as close as NV, MI and WI are I would assume there will be an automatic recount?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 09:30:23 AM
I'm not sure why one would think Michigan is in the bag - Trump is only up 0.5% and Detroit is only 66% reporting.  It would be surprising if Biden didn't take Michigan at this point.  With Biden taking Arizona, he doesn't even need Penn, but Penn's outstanding mail-in votes are more than enough to keep Penn in play.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 09:34:02 AM
Hmmm... I think people need to take a nap.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 09:38:08 AM
Hmmm... I think people need to take a nap.

I sometimes do but I feel it's a bit rude to just say it out in public whilst pretending something else.

Also. "Someone need's a nap." There is no other explanation or introduction that is...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 09:38:58 AM
First of all, you demanded it so obviously because you did I'm now contractually obliged to listen up.

I formally REQUEST, PLEASE, with all due respect and admiration, for you to lighten up, not "listen up". Or at least drink less coffee. 

Quote
You're just a lower tier *censored* unwilling to take a side and properly happy to run in there and take advantage of what did work out.

I find this highly insulting.  I am NOT a lower tier *censored*.  I am a High High tier *censored*.  I am the highest tiered *censored* on this board.  Who is the bigger *censored* than me?  Is there no-one? 

And I did take a side.  I voted.  But I can objectively watch an election without letting my "side" effect my judgement.  It is true that my general philosophy is that all people, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, are pretty crazy, in proportion to how hard they take a "side". 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 09:40:33 AM
Hmmm... I think people need to take a nap.

I sometimes do but I feel it's a bit rude to just say it out in public whilst pretending something else.

Also. "Someone need's a nap." There is no other explanation or introduction that is...

Also you really grinded my gears on that, thinking I could have had a word with you but yeah, we all need to protect each other nowdays.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 10:16:22 AM
With as close as NV, MI and WI are I would assume there will be an automatic recount?
I think it is a bit early to assume they will be that close...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 10:40:09 AM
Some early post-election thoughts.

1.  It looks like Biden is going to win.

2.  It's clear that both campaigns have internal polling that is far more accurate than what is available publicly.  Not clear if they generate it, or if the have deals with third parties for the "good stuff."  As evidence look back at how much of an issue calling Arizona for Biden caused.  Both Biden and Trump mentioned it (Biden seemed to have gone to bed right after that), and at least Fox was repeatedly challenged on the call.  Why?  Because it's pretty clear that both campaigns knew for certain that without it Trump was going to lose.  It'll be interesting after the tally is done and ignoring PA's 20 (if it goes for Biden) whether Biden gets to 270 minus those 11 electoral college votes.  If he doesn't, then you know for certain that they pretty much knew how the rest of the states were going to fall.  In that scenario Biden wins with either PA or Arizona falling his way.  That's how close this was.

3.  Clear repudiation of a national mandate for either team.  Will that cause any humility?  Doubt it.

4.  Despite all the media hate and manipulation that they could generate,  the shear hatred of Trump by so many, and using average Joe as a trojan horse to pretend the Dems are moderates, the support for Trump seems to have increased, including with minorities.

5.  Whether or not there was ballot fraud, or even massive ballot fraud, once the media "calls it" for Biden, there will be no ability to undo the results. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 11:03:31 AM

Are they though?  There's a lot of bluster about what Trump is "going to do" or how he's "destroying the Constitution" or "obviously a criminal" yet it's all panned out to what exactly?

Where has Trump trampled the Constitution, or even threatened it?

A very easy example: When he said he'll try running again for a third term in 2024 after he gets reelected in 2020.

So your "easy example" is a statement that possible 4 years from now he'd negotiate to try and run again?   Lol.  I agree it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which was never going to happen, to make that happen.

Quote
Can you show you have some self-respect Seriati and admit such an attempt would be blatantly unconstitutional? Or will you refuse to do so?

I would think anyone demanding some-one else show they have some "self-respect" should take a closer look at who they are and what they believe.  In what way are you entitled to cast aspersions on my supposed character based on political disagreement? 

Quote
Trump wants to be a president for life like his love monkeys Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Kim and the like.

Lol.  So what?  I said Trump has followed the Constitution and you're pointing to something that has not happened and was never going to happen as some kind of proof?  What about the repeated statements by the Democrats that they will make DC a state?  Not clear under the Constitution that they can do so without an amendment, which amendment is not going to happen, and which effort to make DC a State may happen.

Or how about how Democrats routinely violate the Constitution where it delegates exclusive authority to set election rules to the state legislatures by using the courts and administrative officials to change them in their favor on the fly?  Or how Obama purported to enter into Treaties, such as the Paris Accord (which Biden has promised to re-enter), without the Constitutionally required advice and consent of the Senate? 

No, you don't actually care about who is or is not violating the Constitution, and I'm not convinced you even understand when it's being violated, you just care about tarring and feathering those with whom you disagree.

Quote
Quote
Has he promised to pack the courts?  Or add new states?

Neither of these are unconstitutional, especially not the latter, which frankly ought be an imperative for any democratic citizen.

True not unconstitutional in respect of court packing, just illegitimate.  As far as adding states, adding DC as a state may be unconstitutional, adding Puerto Rico would not be.

Quote
Trumpists don't want Puerto Rico to become a new state, because it's not white majority, not because it'd be supposesly unconstitutional (it wouldn't)

Honestly, never cared one way or the other about Puerto Rico becoming a state.  Unlike Democrats I don't believe that just because its filled with Hispanic people that means its going to vote Democrat for forever.  Republican policies, especially Trump's are better for Hispanic people than Democrat policies.  That'll play out in the long run, more than the entitlement thinking that dominates the left.

Sorry, Seriati.  It's not just the media that is causing the stink in this Administration.

Go review the "Message from the President..." thread.  At least half of the posts quoting Trump are directly from the President himself via Twitter.  No filter.  No media twisting his words.  They are his own unadulterated stupidities.  No middleman required. :)

And?  Anyone with five minutes can compile a list of pure stupidity with Biden's own words.  I've watched Trump press conferences, I've seen the media manipulation and hostility that colors every interaction with him.  I've seen him answer the same question 11 times in a row and the media run with a partial quote that completely misrepresents what he said and what they knew he said.  Some of his own words are stupid, some of the things he believes I don't agree with, but none of that changes that when asked to point to policies all you did was wave your hand at some place else.  Do you really not even know why exactly you disagree with him?

Quote
If you haven't figured out how bad this Presidency has been yet, there's no arguing with you.  You've made up your mind.  But so have I, and right now, my cat would make a better President than Donald J. Trump.  And I don't even like her that much.  ;D

Soundbite, just like I said.  Fact is people were better off under Trump.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 11:05:20 AM
Some early post-election thoughts.

1.  It looks like Biden is going to win.

Probably, the mail in vote and where the vote is outstanding in the key states seem to favor Biden. But I would feel a lot better with the margins being larger.

Quote
2.  It's clear that both campaigns have internal polling that is far more accurate than what is available publicly.  Not clear if they generate it, or if the have deals with third parties for the "good stuff."  As evidence look back at how much of an issue calling Arizona for Biden caused.  Both Biden and Trump mentioned it (Biden seemed to have gone to bed right after that), and at least Fox was repeatedly challenged on the call.  Why?  Because it's pretty clear that both campaigns knew for certain that without it Trump was going to lose.  It'll be interesting after the tally is done and ignoring PA's 20 (if it goes for Biden) whether Biden gets to 270 minus those 11 electoral college votes.  If he doesn't, then you know for certain that they pretty much knew how the rest of the states were going to fall.  In that scenario Biden wins with either PA or Arizona falling his way.  That's how close this was.

Arizona wasn't a secret. Without it Trump needed to flip Wisconsin or Michigan which were less likely than Penn.

Quote
3.  Clear repudiation of a national mandate for either team.  Will that cause any humility?  Doubt it.

Humility from Trump, yeah Doubt it. Can you imagine him being as candid as Obama after 2010's shellacking comment. But failure to expand their house lead and take the senate is going to temper some of the democratic enthusiasm.

Quote
4.  Despite all the media hate and manipulation that they could generate,  the shear hatred of Trump by so many, and using average Joe as a trojan horse to pretend the Dems are moderates, the support for Trump seems to have increased, including with minorities.

Opposition to a wanna be dictator for life has increased as well.
Quote
5.  Whether or not there was ballot fraud, or even massive ballot fraud, once the media "calls it" for Biden, there will be no ability to undo the results.

Trump and you have no evidence of any voter fraud but you'll claim it anyway despite the fact that democrats underperformed polls. You would think with massive voter fraud the democrats could at least come close to matching polling data. Unless all the massive ballot fraud is being committed by Republicans.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 11:09:38 AM
With all the claims about democratic voter fraud. Can the Republicans here state clearly that Trump exceeding the polls by around 4% indicates that Democrats do not engage in any type of wide spread voter fraud?

No, cause Dems do engage in wide spread voter fraud.  I did find it interesting how vote counting stopped (of mail in ballots) in multiple places where in person voting needed to finish.  Any chance someone decided they needed to know how many votes were necessary to flip the states involved?   Honestly, probably not, that would be so blatant that it'd be hard not to catch.  But it hardly matters when you can harvest the large amount of mailed votes without any poll observers involved and already have them sitting there to be counted.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 11:19:44 AM
No, the Republicans commit widespread voter fraud.  Rubber.  Glue. (if it's not obvious: /sarc)

You sound like wmLambert, Seriati.

Evidence-free assertions just make you look silly.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2020, 11:22:29 AM
Quote
But it hardly matters when you can harvest the large amount of mailed votes without any poll observers involved and already have them sitting there to be counted.

And how are they going to account for where these votes came from?  They have voter rolls; they know how many ballots they should have; they checked names off and check signatures for each ballot.  I don't see how you can throw in a "large" number of ballots without having a "large" discrepancy between how many you should have and how many you do. ;)

Idle speculation about how somebody "could" "maybe" "possibly" "might" "imaginably" commit "wide spread" voter fraud doesn't help matters at all.  If it is actually happening, find the evidence.  Flip one of the conspirators.  Get a pile of fraudulent ballots.  Show how it was actually done.  If there is so much of it going on, you should be able to show numerous instances where it made a significant impact on the results.  Otherwise, you're just repeating "just so" stories meant to rile up the bases and perhaps inspire civil war in this country.

Give us actual facts, not speculation.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 11:22:50 AM
With all the claims about democratic voter fraud. Can the Republicans here state clearly that Trump exceeding the polls by around 4% indicates that Democrats do not engage in any type of wide spread voter fraud?

No, cause Dems do engage in wide spread voter fraud.  I did find it interesting how vote counting stopped (of mail in ballots) in multiple places where in person voting needed to finish.  Any chance someone decided they needed to know how many votes were necessary to flip the states involved?   Honestly, probably not, that would be so blatant that it'd be hard not to catch.  But it hardly matters when you can harvest the large amount of mailed votes without any poll observers involved and already have them sitting there to be counted.

It is the thing Trump is failing to address or even attempt to communicate. I'm agreed any fraud that was going to happen in this election has already happened and likely rests among all the mailed in ballots. However, detection of that is basically impossible, so that's a wash.

More generally, it looks like it'll be a Biden win at this point, but as it also looks like the Republicans may manage to hold onto the Senate I'm a little less concerned about the prospects of what might happen in the next two years.

Hard to pack the courts with the opposition party in control of the Senate, and hard to admit new states to the Union which haven't met the standard of 50%+1 of all eligible voters voting in favor of statehood when there's an opposition party in control of one of the relevant legislative bodies that would have to vote against its interests to make it happen.

Honestly for me the nail biter at this point is seeing how the Senate pans out at this point, several of the seats yet to be called are caught up in the same limbo as the electoral votes for their respective state.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 11:25:58 AM
With all the claims about democratic voter fraud. Can the Republicans here state clearly that Trump exceeding the polls by around 4% indicates that Democrats do not engage in any type of wide spread voter fraud?

No, cause Dems do engage in wide spread voter fraud.
Provide evidence that Dems engage in wide spread voter fraud. Because if they do they suck at it. Republicans are winning almost every close senate race, many of the close house races, and Trump outperformed polls by about 4% in most states.
Quote
I did find it interesting how vote counting stopped (of mail in ballots) in multiple places where in person voting needed to finish.  Any chance someone decided they needed to know how many votes were necessary to flip the states involved?   Honestly, probably not, that would be so blatant that it'd be hard not to catch.  But it hardly matters when you can harvest the large amount of mailed votes without any poll observers involved and already have them sitting there to be counted.

Seriously? Its a mystery to you why mail in vote counting would slow down on election day. Do you think it may have something to do with the people who run elections needing to actually run the election on election day?

Mail in ballots are processed (at least in my state) in semi-public ways. I've seen multiple news reports with cameras running inside of the mail in voting processing centers.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 11:27:10 AM
With more of wayne County/Detroit trickling in, Biden's lead in Michigan has increased to 0.7%.  But Wayne county is still under-reporting as compared to the rest of the state (76% vs 92%) so Biden's lead is likely to increase.  It's also unclear where Michigan stands with mail in ballots at this stage, but that is unlikely to help Trump.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 11:27:53 AM
Opposition to a wanna be dictator for life has increased as well.

Since that's a fake story, that's a fake claim.  Nothing about the Trump admin has been run as a dictatorship.  On the other hand, you can  look to the Democrat controlled cities to find the brown shirt rampages endorsed by local governments to intimidate their opposition, which endemnic of real dictatorships, not to mention the oppression of speech through violence (by the left) and even efforts to criminalize political opposition (by the left).

There is a special kind of media induced delusion in operation here.  Very 1984.

Quote
Trump and you have no evidence of any voter fraud but you'll claim it anyway despite the fact that democrats underperformed polls. You would think with massive voter fraud the democrats could at least come close to matching polling data. Unless all the massive ballot fraud is being committed by Republicans.

In absolute fairness you are correct.  I won't have any evidence that you'd accept of voter fraud (I mean we have testimonials by those who did it, we have actual fraudsters caught, we even have an election being re-run because of voter fraud, but nothing you're going to accept - hard to accept things you could see while wearing a blindfold), because voter fraud is nearly impossible to catch with a secret ballot and even more so with a massive amount of mailed ballots. 

Can you even articulate a sensible way to try and catch it?  Why is PA and elsewhere did Dems fight so hard to invalidate signature requirements or identity requirements?  To ensure that fraud couldn't be stopped of course.  There were always reasonable verification alternatives, but the Dem goal was no limits.

But I question whether you are remotely accurate in your premise that Dems underperformed polls.  Dem turn out was massive, more than for Hillary, there's no legit way to translate that to underperforming polls.  No the polls were wrong because they undercounted Trump support, not because they over counted Dem support.

By the way that last point should have been obvious with even two seconds of thought on the point.  Why did you not only skip the thinking but actually go so far as to claim it as evidence as if you'd verified it?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 04, 2020, 11:31:18 AM
I have successful avoided all news other then a few head lines.
Not interested in any analyses or speculation, just final results

Something I felt yesterday as I read some of Seriati/wmLambert  comments was how they view all Democrats as being the enemy consciously and intentionally supporting criminal behavior and the destruction of the country.  A something to be vanquished

This is something that disturbs me. If many on the right or left hold this view I don't see how we come out of it

I think this will be my last comment on things. My opinions won't change the results and I don't think its worth spending any more oxygen on
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 11:31:34 AM
Provide evidence that Dems engage in wide spread voter fraud. Because if they do they suck at it. Republicans are winning almost every close senate race, many of the close house races, and Trump outperformed polls by about 4% in most states.

The Republicans have recently gotten better at getting out the vote - they actually learned something from the Obama years, and successfully put what they learned to good use in 2016 and this year.

Combine that with the Democrats foregoing any in-person efforts until late in the cycle (due to respecting COVID restrictions) and you can attribute a large part of that difference to the ground game.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 04, 2020, 11:41:08 AM

Are they though?  There's a lot of bluster about what Trump is "going to do" or how he's "destroying the Constitution" or "obviously a criminal" yet it's all panned out to what exactly?

Where has Trump trampled the Constitution, or even threatened it?

A very easy example: When he said he'll try running again for a third term in 2024 after he gets reelected in 2020.

So your "easy example" is a statement that possible 4 years from now he'd negotiate to try and run again?   Lol.  I agree it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which was never going to happen, to make that happen.

And if Trump had spoken about a Constitutional Amendment that would permit him to do so, he wouldn't be threatening to trample the constitution -- but he never did so. What he said was:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/18/politics/donald-trump-third-term-2024/index.html
"We are going to win four more years," Trump said at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on Monday. "And then after that, we'll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years."

There, a clear statement that he's going to violate the constitution.
And he's made these statements consistently and repeatedly, so nobody can pretend that he doesn't mean them. No, he NEVER speaks about a constitutional amendment to allow such, he's just saying he's gonna do a third term because he 'deserves it' (and, presumably, just *censored* the constitution).

Quote
I said Trump has followed the Constitution and you're pointing to something that has not happened and was never going to happen as some kind of proof?

No, you asked not only about Trump trampling the constitution but even just "threatening" it.
Now you got a statement where Trump says (effectively) "I'm going to violate the constitution", and you're saying that's not a threat to the constitution. Okay, dude.

Quote
"What about the repeated statements by the Democrats that they will make DC a state?"
Quote
Not clear under the Constitution that they can do so without an amendment, which amendment is not going to happen, and which effort to make DC a State may happen.

To me, as far as I can tell, it seems clear that the power to do so seems to be granted to Congress by the US constitution. (Article IV, Section 3)
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

None of the restrictions here seem to apply to Washington DC. So what exactly makes you think it isn't "clear"?

Anyway, I think my example was much much clearer and much more straightforward than yours.

Quote
No, you don't actually care about who is or is not violating the Constitution, and I'm not convinced you even understand when it's being violated, you just care about tarring and feathering those with whom you disagree.

I fully confess that I don't *always* understand when it's being violated, as I'm not an American and don't really care about every little minutia of US constitutional law (e.g. I have no idea if Obama violated the constitution or not by signing the Paris treaty), but as often happens the case with Trump, this guy is BLATANT about everything, and he similarly BLATANTLY says he'll violate the constitution, in a way that even an ignoramus like me can tell. HE WANTS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND RUN FOR A THIRD TERM.

You will try to deny it, but the simple truth is just that.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 11:43:13 AM
Opposition to a wanna be dictator for life has increased as well.

Since that's a fake story, that's a fake claim.  Nothing about the Trump admin has been run as a dictatorship.  On the other hand, you can  look to the Democrat controlled cities to find the brown shirt rampages endorsed by local governments to intimidate their opposition, which endemnic of real dictatorships, not to mention the oppression of speech through violence (by the left) and even efforts to criminalize political opposition (by the left).
Except for Trump multiple times opining abut how he deserve a make up term for the Mueller investigation. Sorry if I believe he wants that when he says it.
Quote

Quote
Trump and you have no evidence of any voter fraud but you'll claim it anyway despite the fact that democrats underperformed polls. You would think with massive voter fraud the democrats could at least come close to matching polling data. Unless all the massive ballot fraud is being committed by Republicans.

In absolute fairness you are correct.  I won't have any evidence that you'd accept of voter fraud (I mean we have testimonials by those who did it, we have actual fraudsters caught, we even have an election being re-run because of voter fraud, but nothing you're going to accept - hard to accept things you could see while wearing a blindfold), because voter fraud is nearly impossible to catch with a secret ballot and even more so with a massive amount of mailed ballots. 

Show me the testimonials of people who claim to have committed massive organized voter fraud (not the random Joe voting twice in some way). What fraudsters were caught? Trump and the justice department could have made this a priority over the last four years.

The only election I know of that was rerun as a result of fraud was a 2018 NC house race and that was Republican voter fraud. Or are you talking about the NJ primary? The only state I really suspect of massive widespread voter fraud is Georgia. They magically had their election servers erased right after being ordered to turn them over to the courts about 4 or 5 years ago. They use a touch screen voting system that is nearly impossible to audit after the fact.

As to how to detect massive widespread mail in voter fraud. Take 1,000+ names of people who mailed in a vote and contact them to ask if they voted by mail. If you get lots of "no's" then you have evidence of voter fraud (hard to say who committed it or who it benefited) but it wouldn't be that expensive or time consuming to do an audit like that to see if there was massive fraud to begin with.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 11:46:17 AM
Something I felt yesterday as I read some of Seriati/wmLambert  comments was how they view all Democrats as being the enemy consciously and intentionally supporting criminal behavior and the destruction of the country.  A something to be vanquished

No, not at all.  Quite the contrary, I think Democratic voters are almost uniformly good people who mean well, I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team."  It's a virtue signalling to the extreme.  They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.

They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).  They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it, despite that the politicians they admire took money for him and valued him socially, and despite the very real fact that prominent Democrat politicians are every bit as nasty in what they say about Trump and even about Republicans generally, and media and entertainment talking heads are even worse.  They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.  They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do, and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).

I believe that most voters have poorly considered the actual issues.  For Dems that's heavily tied into virtue signally that's putting people into power who are more monstrous than what they believe Trump is.

Quote
This is something that disturbs me. If many on the right or left hold this view I don't see how we come out of it

I find it interesting that Lambert and I bother you, but you don't say peep about those painting all Trump supporters as racist, white supremesists.  That the default position on the left is that Trump is evil and a criminal - despite the complete an utter failure to find any actual evidence thereof.  Effectively, Trump is a witch because they say he's a witch.

That polarization and really hard core ideology that leads to things like antifa showing up at a political rally and punching the teeth out of someone expressing a political opinion.  And that's not a big issue, yet we spent half of yesterday discussing a Biden Supporter's run in with a Trump supporter in a pick up that got "too close" to a bus and that's an outrage.

The fact that you believe the "default" is that the left is right and Trump is evil, rather than we have two groups of voters who meanwell but think different policies get us to the best solution is exactly why we are where we are.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 11:48:53 AM
To me, as far as I can tell, it seems clear that the power to do so seems to be granted to Congress by the US constitution. (Article IV, Section 3)
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

None of the restrictions here seem to apply to Washington DC. So what exactly makes you think it isn't "clear"?

Anyway, I think my example was much much clearer and much more straightforward than yours.

I'd argue that what remains of the the "OG" Washington D.C. is nominally part of Maryland held as a Federal Reservation with a "special consideration" via a constitutional amendment granting it electoral votes in its own right.

So if nothing else, any effort to turn Washington D.C. into its own state should require the consent of the Legislature of the State of Maryland, which is nominally controlled by Democrats, so not too much of a hurdle to clear right?

I think the better, more legitimate, and simpler solution to the Washington D.C. issue regarding statehood is return residential portions of the Federal District to the state from which it came, so it becomes a city/county of Maryland and they can enjoy having a senator and voting representative in the house, by way of the State of Maryland.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 11:56:26 AM
There, a clear statement that he's going to violate the constitution.

Nope.  Just a political rallying call.  Again, talk to me when you find a violation of the Constitution.

Quote
To me, as far as I can tell, it seems clear that the power to do so seems to be granted to Congress by the US constitution. (Article IV, Section 3)

Wrong section, take a look at the section about DC (not to mention the amendment about DC).  Establishes the district as separate from the states and directly controlled by the Federal Government.  Not clear cut, but there's a lot of actual issues with pretending that it's simple to make DC a state.

Quote
I fully confess that I don't *always* understand when it's being violated, as I'm not an American and don't really care about every little minutia of US constitutional law (e.g. I have no idea if Obama violated the constitution or not by signing the Paris treaty), but as often happens the case with Trump, this guy is BLATANT about everything, and he similarly BLATANTLY says he'll violate the constitution, in a way that even an ignoramus like me can tell. HE WANTS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND RUN FOR A THIRD TERM.

You will try to deny it, but the simple truth is just that.

Lol.  A Constitutional violation requires a Constitutional violation, not a political statement.  Regardless of what you think, Trump would not be eligible to run for a third term without an amendment to the Constitution, so you're literally projecting on top of projecting on top of misconstruing.  Exactly what my original point was - when asked to point to the problems with Trump its all soundbites and fake news.

If your real problem is he said he would run for a third term then you'd just be a terribly uninformed single issue voter.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 04, 2020, 12:15:11 PM
Something I felt yesterday as I read some of Seriati/wmLambert  comments was how they view all Democrats as being the enemy consciously and intentionally supporting criminal behavior and the destruction of the country.  A something to be vanquished

No, not at all.  Quite the contrary, I think Democratic voters are almost uniformly good people who mean well, I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team."  It's a virtue signalling to the extreme.  They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.

They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).  They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it, despite that the politicians they admire took money for him and valued him socially, and despite the very real fact that prominent Democrat politicians are every bit as nasty in what they say about Trump and even about Republicans generally, and media and entertainment talking heads are even worse.  They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.  They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do, and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).

I believe that most voters have poorly considered the actual issues.  For Dems that's heavily tied into virtue signally that's putting people into power who are more monstrous than what they believe Trump is.

Quote
This is something that disturbs me. If many on the right or left hold this view I don't see how we come out of it

I find it interesting that Lambert and I bother you, but you don't say peep about those painting all Trump supporters as racist, white supremesists.  That the default position on the left is that Trump is evil and a criminal - despite the complete an utter failure to find any actual evidence thereof.  Effectively, Trump is a witch because they say he's a witch.

That polarization and really hard core ideology that leads to things like antifa showing up at a political rally and punching the teeth out of someone expressing a political opinion.  And that's not a big issue, yet we spent half of yesterday discussing a Biden Supporter's run in with a Trump supporter in a pick up that got "too close" to a bus and that's an outrage.

The fact that you believe the "default" is that the left is right and Trump is evil, rather than we have two groups of voters who meanwell but think different policies get us to the best solution is exactly why we are where we are.

So this will be the last :)
Your reading minds again.  I don't believe in the default that the left is always right - I do believe that Trump is unfit to be president and that their is plenty of evidence of why that is so but we are not going to agree on that. And that's fine

I don't believe everyone that thinks Trump is fit for office and defends his policies is the enemy that needs to be vanquished. 
That is the difference I see between Lambert and myself and not quite sure where you are on that, I think you lean towards seeing anyone who views Trump as unfit for office as the enemy to vanquish.  But I can't read your mind
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 04, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
Quote
Regardless of what you think, Trump would not be eligible to run for a third term without an amendment to the Constitution, so you're literally projecting on top of projecting on top of misconstruing.

Uh, yes, I KNOW FULL WELL Trump would not be eligible to run for a 3rd term, that's EXACTLY why what he said is a threat to violate the constitution. If he was eligible, it wouldn't be such.

You have a weird circular logic eh? You're saying it'd be unconstitutional for Trump to run for a third term (agreed), so therefore you argue when Trump said he'd run a third term he couldn't have possibly meant it, because that'd be unconstitutional, and Trump wouldn't say he'd do something unconstitutional, even when he actually says he'd do something unconstitutional. So, there it's proven by definition that Trump would never do anything unconstitutional, because if it's unconstitutional, that's proof that Trump wouldn't do it. /s

Quote
Nope.  Just a political rallying call.

Yes, a political rallying call where he says that he's going to violate the constitution and people cheer him for it, because Trumpists *love* the audacity of Trump openly saying he's going to violate the constitution.

Thankfully he's almost certainly going to lose tonight, so we'll never get to see him attempt to violate the constitution in this exact manner, and the logical loops several people here (perhaps even you) would be jumping through 4 years from now in order to explain why it turns out it's perfectly fine for him to run a 3rd term, even without a constitutional amendment.

Quote
If your real problem is he said he would run for a third term then you'd just be a terribly uninformed single issue voter.

Oh, I have a LOT of problems with Trump. His love for dictators and other presidents-for-life. He telling non-white people (ones born in the USA) to go back to their "countries". His opposition to NATO. His love for promoting conspiracies. His support for Confederate statues, and having military bases have confederate names. His isolationism. His buffoonery.

It's a long long list.

But you didn't ask about the reasons I despise Trump, you asked about why I think he threatens the constitution.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 04, 2020, 12:33:48 PM
First of all, you demanded it so obviously because you did I'm now contractually obliged to listen up.

I formally REQUEST, PLEASE, with all due respect and admiration, for you to lighten up, not "listen up". Or at least drink less coffee. 

Quote
You're just a lower tier *censored* unwilling to take a side and properly happy to run in there and take advantage of what did work out.

I find this highly insulting.  I am NOT a lower tier *censored*.  I am a High High tier *censored*.  I am the highest tiered *censored* on this board.  Who is the bigger *censored* than me?  Is there no-one? 

And I did take a side.  I voted.  But I can objectively watch an election without letting my "side" effect my judgement.  It is true that my general philosophy is that all people, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, are pretty crazy, in proportion to how hard they take a "side".

Well obviously. You all should probably know me by now. I do not at all trust myself or anything I might say. I never trust myself for anything lol. That doesn't mean what I said. Just didn't half the back-up.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 12:38:55 PM
And back to the election results. Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all sitting at between 0.6% and 1% lead for Biden. Looking at where the ballots are outstanding and the fact that they are mail in means Biden is likely to hold onto that lead or expand it. Pennsylvania has a whole lot of ballots left to be counted, we'll see if the mail in vote was 2-1 for Biden as the polls indicated and if he can make up the current deficit. I think the race ends up really ugly if Trump comes back in one of those 3 and Biden makes up the ground in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 04, 2020, 01:18:26 PM
TheDeamon:
[q] hard to admit new states to the Union which haven't met the standard of 50%+1 of all eligible voters voting in favor of statehood when there's an opposition party in control of one of the relevant legislative bodies that would have to vote against its interests to make it happen.[/q]

Are you saying that there is a way to admit a new state even when more than half of the area's populace voted against it?  Or am I parsing that incorrectly?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 01:23:01 PM
Are you saying that there is a way to admit a new state even when more than half of the area's populace voted against it?  Or am I parsing that incorrectly?

Puerto Rico has voted previously with a decision in favor of becoming a state. No action was taken because 1) less than 50% of eligible voters even participated 2) Republican Congress.

Part of the justification the Dems are using for admitting PR as a state is that "they voted for it already" and we're being undemocratic by not acting on it. (That it benefits them is irrelevant)

I think they voted on it again this cycle, haven't looked into that just yet.

That said, there is no historical situation I'm aware of where a state didn't join without majority support for statehood. But I don't think there is anything legally prohibiting it from happening. They have normally taken efforts to make sure the territory in question wants to be a state, hence 50% of voters need to at least vote on the matter.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 01:44:10 PM
So, checking on PR's statehood initiative for this year. USA Today claims they have 2.36 million eligible/registered voters. Current results with >95% of votes tallied, as per Business Insider as of this posting:
https://www.businessinsider.com/puerto-rico-statehood-referendum-live-results-2020

They have 1,026,333 votes counted. They're not going to reach 50% voter participation this year, even with 52.29% of those who voted having voted in favor of Statehood.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 04, 2020, 01:47:35 PM
Seriati:
Quote
No, not at all.  Quite the contrary, I think Democratic voters are almost uniformly good people who mean well,
good start.  As a random voter who mostly goes (D), I appreciate that stance

Quote
I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team."  It's a virtue signalling to the extreme.  They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.
rather than examining the facts and simply coming to an honest conclusion you happen to disagree with. 

Quote
They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).
Immoral? yes.  Unethical?  Absolutely.  Illegal? Apparently not.  And the proof is in his own books, where he brags about it.  He calls it being a good businessman. 

Quote
They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it,
Not even close to unique.  But 'not the worst' is hardly an endorsement.  And I did notice it from his time on TV and even earlier.  But I'M not the one who thought he would make a good president.

Quote
despite that the politicians they admire took money for him and valued him socially, and despite the very real fact that prominent Democrat politicians are every bit as nasty in what they say about Trump and even about Republicans generally, and media and entertainment talking heads are even worse.
Did I mention how poorly you are coming across when you assume that Democratic voters are simply pulling the (D) lever without thinking about issues or character?  Or that I admire the politician some other state elected?

Quote
They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.
like all of stories about the microchips in the vaccines, or the pedophiles operating out of the back rooms of pizza parlors?

Quote
They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do,
Nope.  And again you are supposedly talking about the average voter here.  So you think that roughly half the population is so morally bankrupt that we would do anything to get a Democrat - any Democrat - into office.  Rather than looking at the shreds of evidence which have been released so far and saying 'man I wish whoever is sitting on the rest would release it so we could see what is actually going on'. 
Remind me, who is sitting on that evidence?  Who has the ability to broadcast it to the entire world but instead decided to release it to a single tabloid?

Quote
and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).
Nope again.  However, reasonable people CAN look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.
Man, the (D) voters in your part of the country seem like a bunch of *censored*.  Assuming they even exist.  You did quite a job of disproving your initial statement.  I no longer believe that you see the average (D) voter as "almost uniformly good people who mean well"  You can't have that many derogatory opinions of them, of their intelligence, of their moral standards, or of their gullibility and still think we mean well.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 04, 2020, 02:08:15 PM
Did I mention how poorly you are coming across when you assume that Democratic voters are simply pulling the (D) lever without thinking about issues or character?

Don't mean to jump in on your conversation with Seriati, but come on. This is so true. The proof is in the pudding when you take note of the rhetoric following Bernie losing the primary to Hillary; everyone was being told (mostly successfully) that they needed to get on board with Hillary, who many Democrat voters hated, to make sure the Democrats still won. I guess you could argue it was to keep Trump out, but I think it would have been the same had it been Cruz instead of Trump. I think I asked in a thread at one point which Republican candidates, or even type of candidate, Democrat/liberal voters here would actually vote for over a D candidate, and the answer wasn't much of a surprise.

The West Wing's last season had a great campaign trail storyline, where both R and D presidential candidates were really excellent. Aside from the fact that in our day and age this is a pipe dream, the American landscape was also a bit different back then. It was perhaps fathomable that a really admirable R candidate could get support from D voters, or that a D president would so respect his opponent that he'd bring him on as part of the team. But the terrain is so partisan and divided now I don't even believe the fictional scenario in The West Wing could occur any more. I legitimately do think that voters hit D and R and that it's irrelevant who the candidate is or what the platform is. In fact this latter point has been born out in spades with both Hillary and Biden quite reluctant to make overly specific campaign promises, instead mostly campaigning on being better than Trump, and being a liberal bastion. It really is just trench warfare now.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 02:28:25 PM
Interesting nugget, apparently ABC has moved Arizona back to undecided from a Biden call.  I didn't see it happen though, just read about it and went to ABC's site where it's in the uncalled section.  If Arizona flips back to Trump things could get interesting.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 02:34:42 PM
AP has called Wisconsin for Biden.  It seems likely that Trump campaign will demand a recount, though I read they can't do that formally until the results are certified on Dec 1. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 02:43:46 PM
CNN hadn't called Arizona yet, but CNN seems to be less "call-y".

Wisconsin was reporting 99% and CNN was still not calling it for Biden.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 02:48:00 PM
AP still has Nevada Arizona called for Biden. Trump trails there significantly, hard to see him making up the ground with 84% of the vote already in. Biden has a better shot in Georgia with all of the outstanding vote coming from the Atlanta area and absentee ballots received near election day. And I don't think Biden is going to flip NC or Georgia. Pennsylvania is the only toss up remaining because there is so much of the vote left to be counted but Trump looks strong there. I'm expecting a 270-268 electoral college win for Biden.

Edit: Correcting state I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 04, 2020, 02:59:12 PM
Fenring -
 The tone of his post was that democrats in particular do this, from some sort of virtue signaling impulse.  Just mindless drones, trying to impress each other with how virtuous we are by way of … an anonymous vote....

Also, how many voters went Green or Libertarian?  I don't remember 4 years ago, but both of those parties had someone on the ballot in PA this year.

I voted for Sanders in 2016 anyway.  Actually, I voted for him this time, too.  I almost voted for one of the 3rd parties, just to give them a boost.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 03:29:08 PM
You have a weird circular logic eh? You're saying it'd be unconstitutional for Trump to run for a third term (agreed), so therefore you argue when Trump said he'd run a third term he couldn't have possibly meant it, because that'd be unconstitutional, and Trump wouldn't say he'd do something unconstitutional, even when he actually says he'd do something unconstitutional. So, there it's proven by definition that Trump would never do anything unconstitutional, because if it's unconstitutional, that's proof that Trump wouldn't do it. /s

No, I said bring me evidence of an actual Constitutional violation and you're arguing about an offhand comment that wouldn't even be relevant until 2024, would require the complicity of the Republican party (which would have to ignore its own rules on nominations), and HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Again, it's an argument from delusion.

Quote
Oh, I have a LOT of problems with Trump. His love for dictators and other presidents-for-life. He telling non-white people (ones born in the USA) to go back to their "countries". His opposition to NATO. His love for promoting conspiracies. His support for Confederate statues, and having military bases have confederate names. His isolationism. His buffoonery.

It's a long long list.

But you didn't ask about the reasons I despise Trump, you asked about why I think he threatens the constitution.

Actually I did ask, and I flat out implied that those opposing him have little to no real basis in policy.  I mean honestly, "his love for dictators" is different in real time from the policies of countless European countries and prior Presidents how exactly?  US foreign policy is overwhelmingly a story of propping up friendly dictators in the classic establishment Democratic and Republican versions.  Can you describe some concession that Trump made to a dictator?  No.  Can you describe the treaty where he gave a dictator some advantage?  No.  All you really are complaining about is that he didn't continue nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea.  The supposed relationship with Putin is a myth, and he's been tougher against Russian interests than Obama was - and we may have just elected Biden to restore the friendly US posture to the Chinese authoritarian government, not to mention the Iranian terrrorist government, and probably even the Russian aggressive government.  But yeah, its Trump that's in love with dictators.

I agree he shouldn't have used that language with the squad.  They're anti-American and pursue policies that are destructive of America and detrimental to America's future, but telling them to go back where they came from was not okay.  Not even against a backdrop where the very countries their families (in several cases) fled from are the ones destroyed by the very policies they are seeking to import.  99% of the media outrage on this was designed to prevent a legitimate discussion about how awful those policies are by side tracking the country into yet another debate about racism (funny how often racism is showing up to short circuit ANY legitimate discussion on policy).

He's not opposed to NATO.  He's opposed to Europe willingly ignoring all NATO obligations and still receiving the benefits of NATO.

His love for promoting conspiracies.  You have to be kidding.  Four years of an invented Russian collusion scandal, breathless anonymous reporting (that turned out to be fake, misleading or just flat out lies), 4 years of whining about all the crimes that Trump's done if only we could violate the law and take all his records we'd surely find proof of something, four years of Trump is guilty it's just a matter of finding the crime he committed.  Conspiracy theories have been the entire, and I mean the entire, operation of the Democrat party for four years.

His support for confederate statues?  Really, maybe you missed that in 2018 about 60% of the country said the statues should stay, even in 2020 polls differ on whether there is majority support to keep them or destroy them.  They are a part of history, and not everything offensive in history should be white washed.  Do you remember the outrage the world felt when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas?  What's the difference in your head?  Is it just you view -at the moment- of good guys and bad guys?  It's a complicated issue, and what did we get out of it?  Four years of the media lying about what Trump said, no matter how debunked they were.

Baffoonery I won't dispute.

In fact, I think someone else said Trump is not worthy of being President.  I agree.  But where they go off the rails is believing that Clinton was worthy, or that Biden is worthy (at least with Biden you could reasonably argue that he might have been 10 years ago before he was senile, but only if you ignore his and his family's corruption and abuse of office).  This country often does not put forward people who are worthy of being President, we still have to choose between them and it's far better to choose based on policy than some kind of high school popularity contest.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 04, 2020, 03:31:10 PM
Fenring -
 The tone of his post was that democrats in particular do this, from some sort of virtue signaling impulse.  Just mindless drones, trying to impress each other with how virtuous we are by way of … an anonymous vote....

Didn't he also say that most voters probably vote for stupid reasons, but that the particular reasons the D voters do it is to virtue signal? It sounds like their particular brand of stupidity may irk him more than the other brand, but I'm not sure Seriati was implying that R voters are magically more virtuous or well-intentioned than D voters are.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 03:35:56 PM
Interesting voting trend in Pennsylvania:

Trump's lead:
Reporting  percent   count
75%      11.4%   618,840
80%      8.1%   463,710
82%      6.6%   388,889
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 03:42:16 PM
Interesting voting trend in Pennsylvania:

Trump's lead:
Reporting  percent   count
75%      11.4%   618,840
80%      8.1%   463,710
82%      6.6%   388,889

Yeah, and the Trumpians will say "looook! The Democrats are stealing the election!" When the mundane truth is that the densest populations report late, and urban areas tend to lean more Democrat than Republican.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 04, 2020, 03:45:37 PM
Interesting voting trend in Pennsylvania:

Trump's lead:
Reporting  percent   count
75%      11.4%   618,840
80%      8.1%   463,710
82%      6.6%   388,889

Yeah, and the Trumpians will say "looook! The Democrats are stealing the election!" When the mundane truth is that the densest populations report late, and urban areas tend to lean more Democrat than Republican.

And the Republican state legislature explicitly forced this scenario by refusing to allow jurisdictions to begin processing mail in ballots before election day.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 03:50:15 PM
I expect another tweet-storm any time now...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: JoshuaD on November 04, 2020, 03:54:21 PM
Putting anything else aside, I really don't think we need twitter censoring the President. Just no thank you.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 04:08:34 PM
It isn't censorship. It's saying "FYI, this guy is full of *censored*", proceed at your own risk.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 04:09:29 PM
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 04:20:18 PM
Seriati:
Quote
I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team."  It's a virtue signalling to the extreme.  They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.
rather than examining the facts and simply coming to an honest conclusion you happen to disagree with.

Oldbrian, I can only call those like I see them.  When arguments are in spite of facts its a point against (e.g., some still believe Trump colluded with Russia).  When arguments ignore reality (e.g., believing that Biden somehow advocated for a COVID policy that would have been better) its a point against.  When there isn't an argument at all (e.g., where discussion is suppressed with violence, or accusations of racism end legitimate discussion, or a sound bite is quoted as fact) its a point against.

But honestly, I haven't talked to any Democrats (despite living in a blue state) that have made a policy argument in favor of voting for Hilary or Biden.  Even here on this board, Trump is evil is the argument.  At best, you get a pseudo-argument, like Biden's going to tax the rich - but totally ignoring that in reality that under Biden's policies the rich will end up paying lower effective rates (just like they always have with Democratic tax policies), particularly the connected rich).  There's a reason billionaires pushed heavily for Biden and it's not because they're going to lose money. 

Quote
Quote
They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).
Immoral? yes.  Unethical?  Absolutely.  Illegal? Apparently not.  And the proof is in his own books, where he brags about it.  He calls it being a good businessman.

Immoral, how so?  In some way that was different than other politicians?

Unethical?  Based on what?

Illegal?  Again, innuendo.  If only professional prosecutors with an axe to grind could look at every single paper he's ever touched, you're just sure they'd find a crime.  What part of justice is that? 

The ethical obligation of a prosecutor is to investigate crimes, not to investigate people.  Do you know how absurd it is to apparently argue for unethical actions by prosecutors wielding the power of state in a claim that you find Trump unethical?  Is the moral principal here that no wrong can be done, no matter the ethical or legal violations, or violations of the principles of justice, in the pursuit of a witch?  We know he's a witch therefore no means is not justifiable by the ends of finding the proof.   Mueller spent two years chasing that fake pipe dream utterly convinced in guilt without evidence.

Quote
Quote
They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it,
Not even close to unique.  But 'not the worst' is hardly an endorsement.  And I did notice it from his time on TV and even earlier.  But I'M not the one who thought he would make a good president.

But he did make a good President.  Now we need to find someone with his policies and intelligence and contempt for the swamp and the ruling political class with less baggage.  Tall order.

Quote
Did I mention how poorly you are coming across when you assume that Democratic voters are simply pulling the (D) lever without thinking about issues or character?  Or that I admire the politician some other state elected?

Not sure why you think they are.  What percentage of people are straight ticket voters and have been for more than 2 decades?  Its surprising, and it means they don't consider character, policies or anything else.  You can watch it at your local election level, where the same people that pull the straight ticket lever complain about the decisions the very people they keep putting back into office make.  There are any number of people who claim they've never voted for the other party.

But again, I don't think this about all voters.  I just think it about the majority.  And I tend to think that there are certainly a larger number of R voters that profess to or actually vote based on character, but there are a bunch that don't.  As recent evidence I point to Doug Jones winning office in deep red Alabama for purely moral reasons, while NJ handily sent Mendendez back to the Senate because of the risk of "losing"  the Senate despite similar and worse ethical issues.

Quote
Quote
They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.
like all of stories about the microchips in the vaccines, or the pedophiles operating out of the back rooms of pizza parlors?

Or that Trump told you to inject bleach or fish tank cleaner to fight Coronavirus?  Or was going to institute marshal law on what now dozens of occasions?  Or that his tax break was for the rich, when it was really a middle class tax cut?  It's funny that the left has been highlighting the same story about the pizza parlors for four years now.  It's almost like its memorable because it's an outlier or something?

Quote
Quote
They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do,
Nope.  And again you are supposedly talking about the average voter here.  So you think that roughly half the population is so morally bankrupt that we would do anything to get a Democrat - any Democrat - into office.

I think the party picked Biden because he wasn't scary.  The party is extreme, and there's no question they saw this election as a chance to get a radical shift in policy.  If they had to run on that policy would they win?

I'd place those odds as zero percent.  Wouldn't you think a national media would care about something like that?  So why did they hide it?  Against a backdrop where the media won't let the election turn into a policy debate, all that's really left is character.  If Biden's character is bad, then it really would put to the test your claim that Democratic voters care about character.  I guess the media paid you a compliment, because they believed they couldn't take a chance with sharing the truth with the voters.

Quote
Rather than looking at the shreds of evidence which have been released so far and saying 'man I wish whoever is sitting on the rest would release it so we could see what is actually going on'. 
Remind me, who is sitting on that evidence?  Who has the ability to broadcast it to the entire world but instead decided to release it to a single tabloid?

Not sure what you want released.  There's more public evidence of Hunter's corruption that everything used in Trump's impeachment, Trump's "crimes" and the Russian collusion hoax combined.  Did you look for it?  I guaranty if it was about Trump or his kids it'd be billed as finding that white whale that Mueller couldn't find, that the NY AG couldn't find, that the House couldn't find.

Quote
Quote
and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).
Nope again.

I'm sorry "Nope" to what?  This isn't even disputable.  Mueller deliberately violated the attorney client privilege to try and get dirt on Trump, planning all along not to prosecute but to turn the information over to Congress where there is no judge to hold the prosecutor accountable.  Democrat congressmen and prosecutors have made up excuse after excuse to try and force disclosure of Trump's tax returns despite having no legitimate or articulable need in furtherance of legislation or real investigation of a crime.  The FBI openly spied on a Presidential campaign on the flimsiest of grounds and used a FISA warrant to do so, even though if you read their notes their goal was an investigation targeting a US person for criminal (and even then it was a stretch) and not espionage purposes.  The Constitution does not make an exception to the need for probable cause in such an investigation, which didn't exist.  Even if you argue that this could be brought in a FISA court the extent of the spying went far beyond anything necessary to determine that there was no spying involved - and you have to ignore that the FISA court's Constitutionality has never been directly challenged - how could it be when it's secret and no defendant even knew their records were illegally seized.  If nothing else, every decent person should care about what was done here.

But even specifically, how many hours of argument about Trump Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer?  Yet, the Clinton campaign hired a firm to hire a British spy to hire a suspected Russian spy to fee Russian propaganda to the FBI to distract from her unethical and illegal diversion of government records to a private server, and that all was somehow okay and it was okay that those agents of Clinton met with the Russian lawyer before and after the Trump Jr meeting (ie. a set up). 

And what came of that?  Nothing.  Actually beyond nothing.  Exoneration.  Why exoneration?  Because Mueller didn't bring those charges, and there was NOTHING stopping him from doing so as a matter of law.  Trump Jr. had no legal immunity, there was no Constitutional issue stopping Mueller from filing charges.  Why didn't he?  You'd know if you read Mueller's report.  Even under the most friendly interpretation of the relevant law possible, Mueller admitted in the report that no court had ever agreed that recieving true information about an opponent was a "thing of value" as contemplated by the relevant law, and even if you could jump that hurdle (which he knew he couldn't), for it to be criminal Trump Jr. would have had to know it was criminal and there was no evidence he did (and Mueller went on further to say there was no way that anyone could have been certain that it was given the problem with the valuation).  Pretty much an entire fake story written to condemn a non-crime.

Quote
However, reasonable people CAN look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.

They could, but they're not.  They're citing to conclusions as if they are facts.

Quote
Man, the (D) voters in your part of the country seem like a bunch of *censored*.  Assuming they even exist.  You did quite a job of disproving your initial statement.  I no longer believe that you see the average (D) voter as "almost uniformly good people who mean well"  You can't have that many derogatory opinions of them, of their intelligence, of their moral standards, or of their gullibility and still think we mean well.

Believe what you want.  Most of my friends are Democrats, heck I was registered as a Democrat at one point.  Both Dems and Republicans are susceptible to propaganda and media manipulation.  You kid yourself if you think four years of full court media press, including entertainment and social media, has created more informed voters.

What's it created is a big swell of "hate" against Trump.  I've talked to dozens of people that say Trump is a racist and can't even process that he's actually not, that his policies have been directly beneficial to minorities.  I mean heck Van Jones even admitted it on the air the other day - and got death threats for it.  How exactly does that parse out in the world of reasoned policy on the left?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: JoshuaD on November 04, 2020, 04:44:30 PM
It isn't censorship. It's saying "FYI, this guy is full of *censored*", proceed at your own risk.

Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

I'm not going to get into the nuances of public vs private. I'm not going to point out that if the tables were turned you'd definitely agree with me. I'm not going to talk about old company towns and their civil-rights violating laws. I'm not going to argue the definition of censored.

The thing Twitter is doing -- by any name -- is not good.  Trump's the President. Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324004491612618752

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324033983882166272

Jack Dorsey has no special authority or knowledge as to whether these claims or true. He knows approximately as much as you and I do, and we know next to nothing. Maybe there is election fraud going on. Maybe there isn't. If the President wants to say that there is, he can say that, and people can judge for themselves. If Jack Dorsey wants to write on his twitter page why he thinks the President is wrong, he can do that. He doesn't know anything that you and I don't know.

If Orson Scott Card came in here and went around tagging each post that he thought was false with "Note: this post is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process." we'd all throw a mini-riot, and rightly so.

Similarly, it's not Dorsey and Zuckerberg's job to audit us for truth on their platforms. It's especially not their job to audit the President's words.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 04:57:56 PM
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Also

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 04, 2020, 05:03:19 PM
Well, the pollsters either need to find another vocation, or they were willing purveyors of left-wing propaganda. Trump was right, but he will still lose even after a litigious period extending weeks, or months. For as stupid as many on this board believe him to be, neither Hillary nor Biden have shown much of a contrast in public popularity.

What I expect in the next four years:

- Domestic economic collapse triggered, not caused, by the idiotic COVID policies Biden will now feel compelled to implement.

- A Senate that will stand as a bulwark against any attempt to pack the Supreme Court, admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as States, or pass any other item on the Democratic wish list.

- Additional disclosures regarding Biden-family political/financial corruption that will dog his entire presidency with perpetual Senate investigations.

- Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage. Short of death, his ego will preclude replacement by Harris.

2024 is looking very good for conservatives.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 05:03:35 PM

Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

He kinda does.  It's his company.  It's his platform.  It's his app/program/whatever.  Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different discussion.  But he can do what he wants.  It's his. 

Quote
If Orson Scott Card came in here and went around tagging each post that he thought was false with "Note: this post is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process." we'd all throw a mini-riot, and rightly so.

Maybe.  But he can do it.  Does anyone doubt that?  OSC has rules that we're supposed to follow and has already stated the way he looks at this.  This is his living room.  He can throw you out if you break his rules.  His moderators have been given that authority.  If he wanted to, he could get right on here and add stuff to your post, etc.  You can throw your mini-riot all you want and argue that it's a bad way of doing things.  I might join in.  But he has that right and ability. 

Quote
Similarly, it's not Dorsey and Zuckerberg's job to audit us for truth on their platforms. It's especially not their job to audit the President's words.

They can do what they like.  If people don't like it they're free to leave.  You can argue it's a bad idea, for business or just immoral, but it's still their choice.   
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2020, 05:08:53 PM
Quote
Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

If Trump doesn't like it, he can just close his Twitter account.  :P

Trump is not the boss of Jack Dorsey. :)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: JoshuaD on November 04, 2020, 05:12:19 PM
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative.  Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them. Facebook and Twitter are the new public square. Zuckerberg and Dorsey don't get to control what people say as much as the market will bear it. There are rules beyond use-of-force.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

No it's not. It's basically true. Trump was ahead in the data in all of the key states last night.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.

The fact that they announced ahead of time that they were going to do this doesn't somehow make it good.

How could we possibly know who's causing the country to unravel unless we talk about it? On what data and authority has Jack Dorsey decided that all claims about election fraud are false?  If someone were submitting fraudulent ballots and the President highlighted it, it's a huge problem that twitter flagged Trump's post as false or misleading. Why exactly do claims of fraud get dismissed out-of-hand? What are we going to do when there is actually fraud?

I'm not making the case that there is election fraud. I'm making the case that Jack Dorsey et. al. have no unearthly idea of whether there is election fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2020, 05:12:57 PM
Oh, yeah, the NY Times as a nice chart that summarizes which states have been called by which major news agencies. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/upshot/network-race-call-tracker.html)  Which shows, for instance, that only Fox News and AP have called Arizona for Biden, but everyone but Reuters has called Wisconsin for Biden.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 04, 2020, 05:16:51 PM

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you. 

Quote
Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them.

The left is wrong. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 05:29:20 PM
More than likely if OSC did that, we'd collectively shrug and move on with our lives.

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative.  Again, I'm making the left's common arguments for them. Facebook and Twitter are the new public square. Zuckerberg and Dorsey don't get to control what people say as much as the market will bear it. There are rules beyond use-of-force.

Trump's tweet that he was "up big" is a blatant objective lie. It isn't a matter of opinion. Twitter was following through on a narrow, well publicized policy.

No it's not. It's basically true. Trump was ahead in the data in all of the key states last night.

Quote
Twitter announced in September that it would label or remove posts that prematurely declare a victory in the US election, be it Trump or Joe Biden.

Quote
It also announced that it would take down posts that ‘prevent a peaceful transfer of power,’ an action that Trump has not been able to fully commit to when asked repeatedly over the last few weeks.

They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.

The fact that they announced ahead of time that they were going to do this doesn't somehow make it good.

How could we possibly know who's causing the country to unravel unless we talk about it? On what data and authority has Jack Dorsey decided that all claims about election fraud are false?  If someone were submitting fraudulent ballots and the President highlighted it, it's a huge problem that twitter flagged Trump's post as false or misleading. Why exactly do claims of fraud get dismissed out-of-hand? What are we going to do when there is actually fraud?

I'm not making the case that there is election fraud. I'm making the case that Jack Dorsey et. al. have no unearthly idea of whether there is election fraud.

Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.

Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation. It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

So you're saying Twitter is a publisher then?

In that case section 230 doesn't apply to them. That should be interesting.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: JoshuaD on November 04, 2020, 05:33:20 PM
What I've said is true. Having these big tech companies do what they're doing with curtailing speech and "fact checking" will be much more harmful for democracy and peace than any exaggerated thing Trump has said (and I do think he went a little too far in his speech last night).

You can close your eyes to these dangers. You can argue against it. There aren't words I can write that will demonstrate beyond argument that I am right, but I am right. The role Facebook and Twitter and taking in society -- the role we all collectively allow them to take -- is a threat to all of us.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 05:37:13 PM
Also, a media outlet can't censor anything. That's not what censorship is.

So you're saying Twitter is a publisher then?

In that case section 230 doesn't apply to them. That should be interesting.

Don't be daft. Of course they can moderate, which is why it isn't chock full of child pornography. I apologize for saying "media outlet" when I should have said "online community". Happier now? You can get posts taken down for any variety of violations of TOS.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 05:39:39 PM
- Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage. Short of death, his ego will preclude replacement by Harris.

I'm more inclined to suspect a January 21, 2023 resignation from Joe. That or they drop the 25th Amendment on him on that day.

Remember, if Kamala becomes PotUS on January 21st, 2023 she will have served less than half of Joe's term of office, which means she can run for re-election twice, and enjoy the advantage of being the incumbent in both races.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 05:40:58 PM

Jack Dorsey doesn't get to put his opinion next to the Presidents every time he tweets.

He kinda does.  It's his company.  It's his platform.  It's his app/program/whatever.  Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different discussion.  But he can do what he wants.  It's his.

I'm partly agreed, he is in his rights to do what he did.

However, he should not be able to hide behind Section 230 while he does so.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 05:44:35 PM

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

"The public" doesn't own my power company, my phone company, my home ISP, or the cable company giving me cable TV yet they're all treated as "public utilities" for some reason?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: JoshuaD on November 04, 2020, 05:44:52 PM
Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.


Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation. It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.

I'm not worried about it even a little bit. We're not going to face a Trump dictatorship.

It's a close election. Trump did look ahead last night. Biden looks ahead now. I have been concerned about voter fraud since April and the talks of big changes with COVID. I'm happy to have this election looked at with a close microscope.  Our election system begs to be abused; we need to do it better.  At the end of that process, we're going to have a President, just like we did in 2000. We're not going to have a dictatorship.

However, we are also going to have Facebook and Twitter, and their recent shift in policy regarding speech does represent a major threat to our Democracy.



Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2020, 05:50:27 PM
What I've said is true. Having these big tech companies do what they're doing with curtailing speech and "fact checking" will be much more harmful for democracy and peace than any exaggerated thing Trump has said (and I do think he went a little too far in his speech last night).

You can close your eyes to these dangers. You can argue against it. There aren't words I can write that will demonstrate beyond argument that I am right, but I am right. The role Facebook and Twitter and taking in society -- the role we all collectively allow them to take -- is a threat to all of us.

They've already triggered the death spiral, Trump certain poured gasoline on the process, but they lit the match.

A majority of the public doesn't trust the major media outlets, and Conservatives in particular really don't trust the major media outlets. Because they've caught the media in many blatant lies about Trump and other issues. They've caught these organizations trying to "spin" and wildly distort a number of other things(often Trump statements, but others as well).

The major Social Media outlets have now proven themselves to not be worthy of "the public trust" as well with the whole thing about Hunter Biden's Laptop just being the latest and highest profile example.

When people start having to rely on "alternative outlets" for their information because they don't trust the major outlets that opens the doors for stuff to go absolutely insane as it suddenly makes sites like Infowars sound not-so-crazy after all.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2020, 06:17:36 PM
Quote
Widespread apprehension at the display of Uncle Joe’s progressive dementia on the international stage.

I find it amazing that the people who worry about Joe Biden having dementia support a guy who speaks to them like he was a 4th grader and brags about passing a dementia test as if he aced an IQ test.  ;D

No sense of perspective.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 04, 2020, 06:22:57 PM
Drake,

“They have a moral responsibility to prevent the country from unraveling, and it is DJT that is pulling on the threads.”

You should have been more focused upon “moral responsibility” when the left concocted their scheme to undermine confidence in the most basic civic function: our, erstwhile, secure and confidential voting process. That is a thread that will be extremely difficult to re-weave.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 06:24:24 PM
If Pennsylvania continues at this pace, Biden will take that state by 2.8%
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 04, 2020, 06:32:11 PM
WS,

“I find it amazing that the people who worry about Joe Biden having dementia support a guy who speaks to them like he was a 4th grader and brags about passing a dementia test as if he aced an IQ test.  ;D

No sense of perspective.”


For perspective:

Trump’s youngest son is autistic, and I have speculated for some time that he inherited it from his high functioning father. As president, Trump accomplished more, in areas that matter to me, during his single term than Reagan did in eight years. He achieved more in one year of his pre-presidency than Biden has in a lifetime.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2020, 06:37:06 PM
The major news organizations have called Michigan for Biden.

If Biden gets Nevada (where he is currently leading and is favored to win) and Arizona (which Fox News and the AP have called for him, although no other major news org), then he'll have reached the magic 270 EV.

Then we just have to see how all the recounts, court challenges, etc. go.  :D
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 06:46:35 PM

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

"The public" doesn't own my power company, my phone company, my home ISP, or the cable company giving me cable TV yet they're all treated as "public utilities" for some reason?

Hmmm, I wonder what the common thread there is... Oh I have it! Those are monopolies. You can't just go to another power company.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 04, 2020, 07:22:29 PM
And more baseless rumors designed to cast doubt on election results.

Quote
“Apparently the use of Sharpie pens in GOP precincts is causing ballots to be invalidated,” tweeted Matt Schlapp, who heads the American Conservative Union. “Could be huge numbers of mostly Trump supporters.”
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 04, 2020, 07:39:07 PM
If Pennsylvania continues at this pace, Biden will take that state by 2.8%
And if Georgia continues its current pace, Biden will take that state by about 1%
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 04, 2020, 07:56:59 PM
Drake,

“And more baseless rumors designed to cast doubt on election results.”

We have a lot of election litigation headed our way, and as acrimonious as I expect this exercise to be in terms of general acceptance of a “President Biden“, there is one huge positive effect. The public will be educated on just how insidiously corrosive “vote-by-mail“ schemes are.

The left made a Faustian bargain, and the devil will have his due.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 04, 2020, 08:41:48 PM
Trump and team are sounding desperate.  Throwing up Hail Mary's at a furious pace.  I wonder if he will short sheet the beds in the White House when he moves out.

I think Biden might have to pull an Atredies when they move in.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 04, 2020, 08:52:52 PM
Explaining the 138,000 votes for Biden that then went away a little while later when the typo was fixed.

https://www.facebook.com/memepoliceman/photos/a.1509554889338469/2479736475653634
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 09:34:20 PM

Right, and we should do that with Facebook and Twitter, except we don't have a fully free market there. They have become like public utilities in that everyone uses them, they actively squash or buy up competition, and there is no practical alternative. 

But it isn't a public utility. The public doesn't own Facebook or Twitter.  There ARE alternatives.  They might not have the same level of customers or platform, but there are alternatives.  Even if there were not, it's not the government's job to give you a speech platform or regulate one to suit you.

I think you're over simplifying. Twitter and Facebook have benefited directly from a government program that protects hosting services that are not publishers, which you can read from it's very terms exists to increase public discussion.  Manipulating political speech is the MOST hazardous type of speech manipulation that can be done.  Effectively Twitter and Facebook both built their market share through fraud, they purported to be content neutral hosting services, they relied on a legal immunity that required they be content neutral with limited exceptions that don't apply, and now they've violated both those requirements and the promises they made to their users.  Heck they both still have places in their TOS that this manipulation directly contradicts.

If you want to keep to your argument, then open the gates and lift their legal immunity for class action suits based on their fraud, manipulation, false pretenses and violation of contract, open up the election interference prosecutions for in-kind contributions in violation of legal restrictions on political advertisements, heck open up the prosecutions for their demonstated failure to actively moderate illegal content with the same abilities they've demonstrated in the political space.

But its unreasonable to take the position that massive monopolies built in reliance on direct government preferences can be allowed to undermine the legal basis for which those preferences exist without consequence.  Cable companies are private and restricted.  Apartments are privately owned and restricted.  Discrimination is illegal on numerous basis for every single business in the United States, and much of it is less damaging to a democracy than this is.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 04, 2020, 09:46:46 PM
Being "ahead in the data" whatever that means, isn't remotely the same as "up big". This isn't like saying "hey my team is up 14-4 in the first quarter, we're up big!" The statement taken together implies falsely that all the votes were counted, and they are now STEALING votes from him. Not that more results are coming in.

All of which he's entitled to say.  Kind of ridiculous to make this claim after all the lies that have been told about Trump that they haven't qualified.   

Quote
If Trump had posted about actual fraud being found, Twitter isn't going to do anything about it. It will also be carried by CNN, BBC, Le Monde, and Ha'aretz.

Well that's just false, we already know exactly what would happen, exactly what happened when there was actual news about Biden's corruption.  Twitter suppressed it based on a policy that didn't apply (hacked materials) that was never applied in the other direction, including two weeks earlier when the NYT published what could just as easily have been described as hacked material from Trump's purported tax returns.  Neither paper shared the source material, but the leak to the NYTs was likely a felony, and the release of information from Biden's laptop was totally legal.

Quote
Speculating about fraud, and stating it as an ironclad fact, is not advancing a conversation.

Isn't it?  Maybe you've missed the number of times you yourself, and others on this board have speculated about the lack of fraud and stated it as ironclad fact.

Quote
It isn't musing over whether there might or might not be fraud happening. It's the overture to the dictator's symphony to declare elections invalid, and then make it so that every future election is 100% rigged in their own favor. That's the unraveling that I'm talking about.

You mean like by adding new states to the country?  Legalizing all illegal aliens?  Sending votes unsoliited to everyone on the rolls, whether or not alive or even resident in the location?  Changing the laws to allow ballot harvesting (which was already a prime vector of fraud) in CA where it benefits you and decrying it as beyond criminal in NC where it didn't?  How about changing the voter laws illegally through officials that have no authority to act knowing full well that it's impossible to undo (which happened in Austin among other places)?  Trying to only conduct recounts in certain pro-DNC counties in a state, remember Bush v Gore? 

Lol, the DNC has been working to rig the rules for forever.  Why do you think judicial election rule challenges to rules that have been in place for years are always made days before the election?  It's to try and get a judge to make an illegal change knowing full well the courts are never going to over turn the results.  You can see it this year in PA, where the courts violated the Constitution extending the voting deadline, which is exclusively the legislature's mandate, and there's zero chance votes received as a result of that illegal change won't be counted.

How about the illegal election vote by mail groups that have been operating?  Or Facebook's register the vote project that was issued orders by state boards of elections to desist spreading information that was factually inaccurate in their states and in some cases illegal?

There's lots of irregularities out there.  Can you admit it?  Or is this another case of so long as it plays well for the home team it never happened?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 07:28:31 AM
And here's one reason why the right wing believes, without any basis, that election fraud is a significant issue. Sean Hannity
Quote
Tonight every American should be angry, outraged and worried and concerned about what happened in the election and the lead up to the election.
...
Do you trust what happened in this election? Do you believe these election results are accurate? Do you believe this was a free and fair election?

And Tucker Carlson was just as irresponsible.

It's hard to blame the right wing when they uncritically ingest this level of disinformation on a nightly basis.  But this is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. They seemingly have no shame.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 05, 2020, 07:46:14 AM
I've seen pundits on the left saying essentially the same thing.  For different reasons of course.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 07:55:15 AM
Really?  Is there a single media outlet that commands nearly the same universal audience of the left?  The closest would be, what, CNN? MSNBC?  And are they really suggesting that the election results should not be trusted?  What I have seen is them bemoaning that so many on the right made the wrong choice, or could not, and that the Democrats failed in making their case.

I don't think "the same thing" means what you think it means.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 08:01:14 AM
With 96% of the vote counted in Georgia, Trump's lead is down to 0.4%, and Biden is trending to win the state by about 1.5%...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 08:04:11 AM
Donald,

“And here's one reason why the right wing believes, without any basis, that election fraud is a significant issue. Sean Hannity.”

I think that you have the issue reversed; Sean Hannity believes that this election was corrupted due to the very same reasons that I have been pointing to now for weeks. Unsolicited “mail in ballot requests” and “mail in ballots” are an open invitation to numerous varieties of election fraud... especially where we are now looking at “victory” margins of less than two percent.

Biden will be installed as President, rest assured, but a substantial portion of the electorate will never consider him to be duly elected. His presidency is tainted out of the gate, and he will achieve nothing that cannot navigate the angry obstructionist Senate now sitting in his path to governance.

Congratulations!
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 08:13:24 AM
And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 08:25:53 AM
And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?
Ummm... Nevada? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, yoss.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:28:55 AM

3.  Clear repudiation of a national mandate for either team.  Will that cause any humility?  Doubt it.

4.  Despite all the media hate and manipulation that they could generate,  the shear hatred of Trump by so many, and using average Joe as a trojan horse to pretend the Dems are moderates, the support for Trump seems to have increased, including with minorities.

5.  Whether or not there was ballot fraud, or even massive ballot fraud, once the media "calls it" for Biden, there will be no ability to undo the results.

I think these are the most interesting and important comments/questions when it comes to "what happens next". 

I agree that neither side seems to have a mandate.  Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think.  The Republicans continue to hold the Senate, in defiance of most statistical predictions.  Will there be some humility? 

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.  They have too many members whose brand is "not humble".  I expect to hear lots of continuing noise, especially from the far left members.  The more moderate/centrist Democrats will be happy to let the administration take the lead.  Will the Biden admin be humble?  So far the tone from Biden has been one of reconciliation, but a great deal depends on who makes up the Biden admin.  Nevertheless, I expect the tone to be different than the previous administration.  Of course, I expect the Biden Admin to have an easier time with CNN/MSNBC/NBC, etc, but it helps when you're not saying crazy stuff every week. 

Certainly I can tell you who would not be humble if they had been elected President.  Of that I have no doubt.  So I don't know how certain Republicans can be demanding it now. 

Will the Republican Senate be humble?  I expect Cocaine Mitch to remain in charge.  He was never really much of a braggart.  He was the type, "this is what I can do and I'm going to do it".  I expect more of the same.  He's going to do his best to negotiate from a position of equal strength with the Biden Admin.  Hopefully we're not going to see anymore obstructionist tactics like government shutdowns, etc, but both sides are going to have to compromise.  If the Biden Administration is overbearing and expects to get it's way on everything, then what else should we expect from a Republican Senate?  I expect Biden, as a long term Senator with years and years of swamp/establishment experience, to have a way with getting along with McConnell.  We'll see. 

Will Republican congressmen be humble?  Who cares?  They can't do much.  Maybe complain.  I don't even know who the House Minority Leader is.  It certainly isn't anyone of Paul Ryan's caliber. 

So here's to hoping for the Swamp Thing Administration.  May it be better than the last when it comes to humility, bipartisanship, and a spirit of reconciliation, than the last administration.  It's not a hard bar to get above. 


I read a bunch of talk from some quarters on hatred for Trump, particularly as being responsible for his possible/probable loss.  I personally don't hate The Great 4th Grade Communicator.  I find him distasteful.  Like biting down and taking a big mouthful of turd sandwich.  I don't believe that's hatred.  There is far less emotion involved.  I'm not sure if I honestly hate anyone.  Bashar Al-Assad and his useful idiots might come closest.  Even then, I feel more of the same emotion you would feel when presented with a rabid dog that likes raiding chicken coops. 

I have to admit that there are plenty of Never Trumpers whose dislike has warped their sensibilities into something approaching hatred.  It is at least to me irrational.  The Lincoln Project people, and maybe even the people from Bulwark, are pretty wrapped up in Trump.  I'd expect them to be out of a job and out of things to complain about, but I doubt that Trump will go quietly into that good night.  So they're probably still have things to go nuts about for the foreseeable future. 

I don't think that these people are responsible for Trump's possible/probable loss.  All those people didn't vote for Trump last time.  If Trump loses, it's because of people who switched their vote in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.  They supported Trump at first and he lost them.  Maybe it was all about Hillary.  It could have been a million different things.  But it wasn't Never Trumpers. 


I don't think that the media is the final arbiter of the election.  If there is fraud, there is room for lawsuits.  The court will be the final decider, as it should be.  If laws were broken and you can show that they were broken, you might have some sort of case.  But the media has little to do with it.  I expect there to be plenty of lawsuits from the Trump campaign.  They've already said they are going to challenge all sorts of stuff.  I expect that no matter who the media declares the winner, the lawsuits and recounts will stretch into January.  When SCOTUS says enough, it will be over. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:33:09 AM
I think that you have the issue reversed; Sean Hannity believes that this election was corrupted due to the very same reasons that I have been pointing to now for weeks. Unsolicited “mail in ballot requests” and “mail in ballots” are an open invitation to numerous varieties of election fraud... especially where we are now looking at “victory” margins of less than two percent.

I've seen no evidence presented that supports this assertion.  Mail in ballots have been used since when?  The ease at which the process is susceptible to fraud does not prove that fraud occurred.  It simply means that there is reason to revise the laws in place.  Claiming that fraud occurred without proof is dangerous and irresponsible.  Sean Hannity is free to present his case in court.  If he has evidence, let him put it forward.   
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 05, 2020, 08:40:47 AM
His proof is Trump lost. What more do you need?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 08:45:33 AM
Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think. 
Biden will likely win either 306 or 321 EC votes - that's more than what 2 of the last 3 presidents won and higher than in 3 of the past 5 presidential elections.

Biden's vote share will also exceed that of Trump and Bush in both his elections - and there is an outside chance that Biden might match Obama's vote share in his second election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:53:23 AM
Biden will have won the electoral vote by the slimmest margin since....Jefferson I think. 
Biden will likely win either 306 or 321 EC votes - that's more than what 2 of the last 3 presidents won and higher than in 3 of the past 5 presidential elections.

Biden's vote share will also exceed that of Trump and Bush in both his elections - and there is an outside chance that Biden might match Obama's vote share in his second election.

I was assuming that Trump might win Pennsylvania and Biden only get 270 EVs.  That's still in the air though.  It's possible that Biden could win Penn as well.  I don't expect him to win Georgia or North Carolina.  I predict Biden wins with 270 or 290.  Let's be honest, it wasn't a blowout landslide.  If Biden had won Florida along with Georgia and North Carolina, it would be different. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 05, 2020, 08:56:09 AM
Fenring:
Quote
but I'm not sure Seriati was implying that R voters are magically more virtuous or well-intentioned than D voters are.

I am.  He managed to convince me of that.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 09:14:24 AM
And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?
Ummm... Nevada? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, yoss.

Conspiracy? What conspiracy? That there isn't massive widespread voter fraud? I've been told repeatedly by Republicans that such fraud exists but they never provide any evidence, or if they do its one guy who voted for his dead mom in one election.

You're right that Nevada did send out mail in ballots like neighboring Utah.

But be specific about fraud claims. I could easily claim that the difference between the polls and vote totals shows that Trump ran a massive voter fraud campaign in Florida. Even that circumstantial evidence is more evidence than is being provided for widespread massive democratic voter fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 05, 2020, 09:27:48 AM
Since I can't edit my previous post, and Seriati's post came in while I was typing:

He has convinced me that even though he says the words 'typical democrat voter' what he really means is 'typical democrat official'  because every single argument he made was centered around what happens in D.C.

So my entire argument with him is out the window, since I was talking about regular people and he was talking about party leaders and elected officials.  Even when I called his attention to the fact that he was supposed to be talking about the voters, his response was about what the party did or what Mueller did.

So I take it back.  I once again believe that HE believes the regular voters are well meaning.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 09:28:32 AM
I was assuming that Trump might win Pennsylvania and Biden only get 270 EVs.  That's still in the air though.  It's possible that Biden could win Penn as well.  I don't expect him to win Georgia or North Carolina.  I predict Biden wins with 270 or 290.  Let's be honest, it wasn't a blowout landslide.  If Biden had won Florida along with Georgia and North Carolina, it would be different.
There's only 0.4% between then in Georgia, and the big cities (primarily Des) are under-reporting.  Plus, Biden's vote tallies since the majority of in-person ballots were processed (so, mail-in primarily) have been exceeding Trump's by about 40%.  Unless that trend changes, Biden will comfortably take Georgia.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 09:30:48 AM
Yoss, I think you missed the sarcasm.  Nevada is the only battleground state that sent out unsolicited ballots.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 09:33:41 AM
Yoss, I think you missed the sarcasm.  Nevada is the only battleground state that sent out unsolicited ballots.
Sorry didn't look at who wrote the post. The fact is its the response I was expecting from Noel, assuming he gave a substantial one. Sarcasm/satire is hard in the age of Trump.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 10:21:32 AM
If Pennsylvania continues at this pace, Biden will take that state by 2.8%
As the count % in Pennsylvania has increased from 80% to 91%, Biden's share of the recently counted vote has not just averaged 75% over that 11% tranche, but it has been consistently between 70% and 80% for each incremental sub-tranche.

If the same trend holds true for the remaining 9% of uncounted votes, Biden's margin over Trump will likely be on the order of 3% to 3.5%.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 10:48:03 AM
Pennsylvania is drifting toward Biden. The gap in Arizona has been tightening as well. I didn't see much movement in Nevada. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I'm hopeful of a Biden win but don't see it as a sure thing yet.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 10:57:33 AM
Beginning to look like Georgia could flip for Biden.  Should know by noonish time to this evening.  Depending on how you're counting Arizona, this would put Biden over the top. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:11:21 AM
Nevada stopped reporting all counts yesterday... maybe because of the shooting.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:18:07 AM
Georgia is pretty much a done deal, and was looking that way since yesterday afternoon.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 11:26:56 AM
I'm not seeing where there would be enough ballots left in Georgia to finish flipping it. Is Georgia accepting mail in ballots post marked by election day and received by Friday?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:35:33 AM
I'm not seeing where there would be enough ballots left in Georgia to finish flipping it. Is Georgia accepting mail in ballots post marked by election day and received by Friday?
Trump's lead is about 18,000, and there are about 200,000 votes left to count.

96% complete, 4,800,000 counted so far.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:37:11 AM
Of course, that assumes the %complete is accurate and based on votes counted/votes received
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 11:39:33 AM
I'm not seeing where there would be enough ballots left in Georgia to finish flipping it. Is Georgia accepting mail in ballots post marked by election day and received by Friday?
Trump's lead is about 18,000, and there are about 200,000 votes left to count.

96% complete, 4,800,000 counted so far.

Okay, NPR/AP has the same total but is estimating 99% of the vote has been counted.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:45:24 AM
Even with 99% reporting, that would still be sufficient.  It would be closer, but 50,000 is still more than Trump's 18,000 lead.

As an aside, Trump's lead is now down to 15,000.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 12:02:43 PM
Hmmm... saw a tweet referencing the Georgia Secretary of State saying there are 60,000 votes left, so the NPR 99% would be more accurate then what CNN is showing.

This should be fun - absentee ballots that were rejected can be corrected/fixed up until 5pm on Friday.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 12:04:23 PM
Hmmm... saw a tweet referencing the Georgia Secretary of State saying there are 60,000 votes left, so the NPR 99% would be more accurate then what CNN is showing.

60,000 mail in left going 2-1 for Biden would net him 20,000 and flip the state. But with 60,000 left its going to be a nail biter either way.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 12:05:36 PM
Yeah it won't be over.  They'll be in the automatic mandatory recount zone.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 12:22:28 PM
Grant,

“I've seen no evidence presented that supports this assertion.  Mail in ballots have been used since when?  The ease at which the process is susceptible to fraud does not prove that fraud occurred.  It simply means that there is reason to revise the laws in place.  Claiming that fraud occurred without proof is dangerous and irresponsible.  Sean Hannity is free to present his case in court.  If he has evidence, let him put it forward.”

Respectfully Grant, no, it is not irresponsible to openly assert fraud under current circumstances. To claim fraud within a system inherently susceptible to abuse, to which third party observation is the only safeguard, and is demonstrably impeded in such States as; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan is manifestly “responsible”.

Y-22,

“And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?”

... And/or ballot requests from dated voter rolls; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 12:28:20 PM
“And which of the battleground states sent out unsolicited ballots?”

... And/or ballot requests from dated voter rolls; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

And your assertation is that hundreds of thousands of Americans (actually only democrats) decided to commit a felony by requesting a ballot in someone else's name and then really, really, hope that the individual decided not to update their voter registration thereby immediately flagging that as a troubled ballot and then authorities then could easily go to their address and arrest the culprit.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 12:44:49 PM
The mental gymnastics coming forth here are making the Hillary camp's increasingly desperate defense of Michigan in 16 look like amateur time.

Eta - Major props to Cherry for being a true blue conservative who thinks Obama is just the worst and yet has calmly acknowledged the result and just asked how we think a Biden Presidency/Republican Senate is going to unfold.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 12:46:32 PM
Respectfully Grant, no, it is not irresponsible to openly assert fraud under current circumstances. To claim fraud within a system inherently susceptible to abuse, to which third party observation is the only safeguard, and is demonstrably impeded in such States as; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan is manifestly “responsible”.

I don't see it that way Noel.  I will repeat that just because a system is susceptible to abuse does not constitute evidence that abuse is occurring.  But you can try it out with a judge. 

Let me put it this way.  Let's say that I have a garage that I keep open.  One day I say "My neighbors are stealing from my garage".  Now, my garage is vulnerable to theft, this is true.  But when the cops show up, the first thing they're going to want to know is what is missing.  Where is the evidence that something was stolen?  Is there video?  What makes me suspect my neighbors? 

As to impeding third party observers, I have not seen anything on that.  My understanding is that people have been designated, from both parties, to be available when votes are being counted.  These are your safeguards.  Third party yahoos that want to just jump in and watch are not part of the system.  So I'm going to need some more information before I can say that the safeguards that have been put in place are being impeded. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 05, 2020, 01:00:00 PM
And to say that the observers are not able to stand watch over all of the mail in ballots and verify the signature of each one is just obtuse. What makes those observers qualified to verify those signatures?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 01:05:12 PM
And to say that the observers are not able to stand watch over all of the mail in ballots and verify the signature of each one is just obtuse. What makes those observers qualified to verify those signatures?

They saw something someone posted on Facebook.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 01:23:17 PM
In Nevada Biden's lead grew from about 8,000 to 12,000 votes in the last update. An estimated 12% of the ballots are still outstanding.

Arizona is still close, it looks like Trump would need about 60% of the estimated remaining vote to get to a tie.

Pennsylvania is looking to be more in play than I originally thought it was with the early returns. 12% of the estimated vote outstanding. If Biden wins at least 60% of the vote he's going to win Pennsylvania. Biden has been doing better than that in the groups of mail in votes coming in over the last couple days so I think we may expect this to flip from Trump lead to Biden lead over the next day.

Georgia looks to be running out of votes for Biden to make up the 12,000 difference. The gap is small enough provisional ballots could come into play. If the race hinges on Georgia it could get messy, they don't have a good paper backup system for recounts.

North Carolina is still sitting undecided in case the mail in ballots post marked by election day role in. There's potentially up to 120,000 if everyone who requested one returns it. I'm not expecting that to be able to close the 75,000 vote gap in NC.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 02:37:18 PM
Grant,

“As to impeding third party observers, I have not seen anything on that.  My understanding is that people have been designated, from both parties, to be available when votes are being counted.  These are your safeguards.  Third party yahoos that want to just jump in and watch are not part of the system.  So I'm going to need some more information before I can say that the safeguards that have been put in place are being impeded.”

Your understanding is correct, however; is the “designated” observers that are lodging complaints. If the police asked you if you saw your neighbor steal from your garage, and you said; “no because her husband held me at bay thirty feet around the corner”, then you have a cause of action in filing a complaint for theft.

Y-22,

“And your assertation is that hundreds of thousands of Americans (actually only democrats) decided to commit a felony by requesting a ballot in someone else's name and then really, really, hope that the individual decided not to update their voter registration thereby immediately flagging that as a troubled ballot and then authorities then could easily go to their address and arrest the culprit.”

Yes, and not only fraudulent ballot ”requests“, but diverted live ballots intended for move-outs (9% of the population annually), and dead people. Further, given the scenario witnessed last Tuesday by designated observers held thirty feet from the “readers”, these “ballots” estimated in ~120,000 tranches, did not even need to be real ballots. They just needed to be machine readable.

At the point that Republican observer interference takes place, the burden of proof for ballot legitimacy shifts to Democrats.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 02:38:30 PM
P.S.,

You can stop pretending to be following an actual race for electors.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2020, 02:49:19 PM
Biden will be installed as President, rest assured, but a substantial portion of the electorate will never consider him to be duly elected. His presidency is tainted out of the gate, and he will achieve nothing that cannot navigate the angry obstructionist Senate now sitting in his path to governance.

I'm more mixed on this. It depends on what Biden is allowed to do by his Cabinet.

He's in a rather unique situation. Due to his age, exceedingly few people consider him as being likely to run in 2024, heck a LOT of people don't expect him to fulfill the term of office he was elected to.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress are going to be relieved to have the Bully Pulpit taken away from Trump. They can start to return the GOP to the rails without Trump constantly derailing things with his mouth. (Although I wouldn't be surprised to see the MSM giving Trump lots of air time expressly for the purpose of playing up "How the GOP is at war with itself.")

If Biden tries to govern as a moderate, which means ditching much of the platform he ran on, he'll be able to get a lot done... At least so long as the House plays ball. If the House prevents him from governing from the center, the Republicans can potentially take care of that in two years.

But if Biden sticks to the platform he ran on, then yeah, it's going to obstruction central for much of the next 2 years.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 05, 2020, 02:58:09 PM
I have found only one instance of a credentialed observer being prevented from something they are allowed to do. They were credentialed in a different district, and their name couldn't be found at first.

There has been a lot of complaining about things they are not allowed to do, including looking over the poll watchers shoulder to determine if they think that signatures match. You get to see that they are matching signatures, not second guess their determination that a signature matches.

I'd like to find the full text of the complaint that got thrown out in Michigan, but I don't see anything.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 03:06:29 PM
Y-22,

“And your assertation is that hundreds of thousands of Americans (actually only democrats) decided to commit a felony by requesting a ballot in someone else's name and then really, really, hope that the individual decided not to update their voter registration thereby immediately flagging that as a troubled ballot and then authorities then could easily go to their address and arrest the culprit.”

Yes, and not only fraudulent ballot ”requests“, but diverted live ballots intended for move-outs (9% of the population annually), and dead people.

For move outs someone would have to request a ballot, presumably knowing they were moving within the next couple weeks and then not have their mail forwarded to them. A 9% yearly number of people moving is grossly overestimating the number of people who were moving in October and requested a ballot be sent to the address they were moving away from. How many people do you think that is?

Dead people, again something easy to verify is fraudulent after the election. Also requires someone to have died relatively recently and the state to not have procedures to remove them from the voter rolls and for their surviving family to request a ballot in their name in order to vote. I still don't see either of these activities being widespread and I would wager what fraud does happen of this type is an effective wash politically. Neither party could have a mechanism for doing either of these things in a wide spread systematic way that would go unnoticed.

Quote
Further, given the scenario witnessed last Tuesday by designated observers held thirty feet from the “readers”, these “ballots” estimated in ~120,000 tranches, did not even need to be real ballots. They just needed to be machine readable.

At the point that Republican observer interference takes place, the burden of proof for ballot legitimacy shifts to Democrats.

The ballots have to be "real" to be readable by the machines. And again if there is wide spread voter fraud/impersonation going on. It would be detectable after the fact. Take a sample of 2,000 people who cast a ballot and after the election go ask them if they voted. If you get 100 people who will swear they didn't then you have detected a voter fraud issue.

The Democratic observers were kept at the same distance away. With thousands of ballots being sent through the machines at a time the only thing observers can do at any distance away is to make sure each ballot is only sent through the machine once. And 6ft or 30ft you can verify that. If Pennsylvania failed to allow observers at the opening and readying of the ballots then take that up with their republican state legislature.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 05, 2020, 04:00:23 PM
I think that you have the issue reversed; Sean Hannity believes that this election was corrupted due to the very same reasons that I have been pointing to now for weeks. Unsolicited “mail in ballot requests” and “mail in ballots” are an open invitation to numerous varieties of election fraud... especially where we are now looking at “victory” margins of less than two percent.

I've seen no evidence presented that supports this assertion.  Mail in ballots have been used since when?

Mail in ballots that have been used, have generally been used only when they were requested by the voter.  That's an enormous fraud control right there.  If properly done you would then have the signature of the relevant voter to compare to the ballot received, you'd also have the record of the request, which can be verified after the fact as being legitimate if necessary.  Mailing unsolicited ballots has no controls whatsoever, there likely isn't any way - at all - to verify that the voter on the ballot was the one who cast the ballot.  When you do have anecdotal stories of people manipulating the process, it's willful blindness to ignore them against a backdrop of a country that does include people with no ethics, no morality and a complete willingness to abuse any process to the extent of which they can get away with it.

Some states have had an extensive mail in process in place for a while, and they have reasonable controls and processes (for the most part).  However, in states that approved this off the cuff, or worse where local election officials violated  state rules to create their own solutions (TX for example), or where judges imposed changes (PA), protective controls are skipped or missing.  I mean, if a state legislature requires a postal stamp to verify date, a judge ordering acceptance without one or in spite of one is actual voter fraud.  That's before you skip eye witness accounts of manipulation of date stamps by local postal officials, which is voter fraud and election manipulation, or of local election officials opening illegal ballots and deliberately mixing them into the legal ballots to prevent their proper disposition.

And don't even get me started on people having complained for 4 years about Russian election interference through what Mueller ultimately identified was a de minimus ad spend against blatant media lying about Trump and covering up for Biden.

Quote
The ease at which the process is susceptible to fraud does not prove that fraud occurred.  It simply means that there is reason to revise the laws in place.  Claiming that fraud occurred without proof is dangerous and irresponsible.  Sean Hannity is free to present his case in court.  If he has evidence, let him put it forward.

You have some truth here, but you ignore that catching fraud in a secret ballot election is NEVER going to be easy.  Finding proof would generally mean violating the secret ballot itself.  With that background, if a group is doing everything in its power to eliminate controls on fraud, like voter id, signature or notary requirements, that a voter requested a ballot, its pretty solid evidence that either they believe there is fraud and they benefit from that fraud, or they don't care -at all- about whether or not there is fraud and believe they would benefit from it.  I seem to remember a lot of people who had an issue with the possibility that the Trump campaign may have been aware that Russia preferred them even though they didn't collude them, yet when the DNC apparently views making sure fraud would be impossible to detect because they believe any fraud would benefit them (or worse, actively know that fraud is benefiting them), they don't have an issue.

Home team rules.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 04:23:55 PM

If properly done you would then have the signature of the relevant voter to compare to the ballot received, you'd also have the record of the request, which can be verified after the fact as being legitimate if necessary.  Mailing unsolicited ballots has no controls whatsoever, there likely isn't any way - at all - to verify that the voter on the ballot was the one who cast the ballot.

The fact that leaving the garage door open is stupid does not prove that theft occurred.  I can buy that mailing unsolicited ballots may present problems and opportunity for fraud.  But it is not evidence that fraud occurred.  There's nothing.  If a system has too many loopholes, I support closing them. 

Quote
When you do have anecdotal stories of people manipulating the process, it's willful blindness to ignore them against a backdrop of a country that does include people with no ethics, no morality and a complete willingness to abuse any process to the extent of which they can get away with it.

I got anecdotal stories about people seeing Elvis, Bigfoot, and the Lizardman too. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 05:15:51 PM
Lizardmen, surely?

So, Georgia - there are still 47,000 votes to be counted, and Trump's lead stands at 9,000 now.  There are additionally military ballots that may still show up, provisional ballots which may count, and rejected ballots that could be cured (by EOD tomorrow).

Quote
In Georgia, more than 47,000 outstanding mail ballots that have been returned still need to be counted as of 2:40 p.m. ET on Thursday, the state secretary of state’s office said.

That number, however, is very likely not the full number of ballots that remain to be counted. Military and overseas ballots have until Friday to come in. Nearly 9,000 of those ballots were sent out and not returned yet. It’s possible they could all come back or none will.

The 47, 277 figure also doesn’t include provisional ballots — which voters were asked to cast if they, for example, forgot their ID or went to the wrong polling place, WABE’s Emma Hurt reports.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 05:28:59 PM
And one has to wonder whether Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is slow walking the announcement process in hopes he doesn't get pegged as the guy who announced Trump's loss.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 05:37:56 PM
And one has to wonder whether Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is slow walking the announcement process in hopes he doesn't get pegged as the guy who announced Trump's loss.

I was thinking the same thing regarding the networks moving slowly to announce the same thing.  I guess it's not official, but it seems the writing is on the wall.  Better to be slow than fast on this, I guess. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 05, 2020, 06:31:33 PM
Let me put it this way.  Let's say that I have a garage that I keep open.  One day I say "My neighbors are stealing from my garage".  Now, my garage is vulnerable to theft, this is true.  But when the cops show up, the first thing they're going to want to know is what is missing.  Where is the evidence that something was stolen?  Is there video?  What makes me suspect my neighbors?

To make it more "equivalent" let's say you live primarily at your vacation home, and you let your 3 kids each run an e-bay business out of the open garage of your main house in another state.  Each of your kids has hundreds of customers in and out of the garage to pick up packages sometimes unmonitored.  You also let 2 high school friends use the space for storage and to meet with clients, including walk-ins, for their own businesses in what is at times a very busy garage.

You've never seen your neighbor actually stealing anything.  You're not even aware of what's actually supposed to be in the garage at any time.  However, you do frequently see your neighbor on your existing security cameras approaching the side of your garage, where you happen to know there's a hole that opens into the inside of the garage but where you can't see the hole or the inside of the garage (your kids and their customers heavily object to a camera inside the garage.  Your neighbor walks over upright, and routinely walks back after 5-15 minutes hunched over. 

None of the businesses inside can identify anything stolen, but there are frequently comments on their web pages from customers that claim items they ordered were not there when they go to pick them up.  Everyone that uses the garage just accepts that sometimes an item is going to missing or be misplaced with that many people in the garage, and just accepts it as a cost of doing business and provides refunds or replacements.

There's never going to be proof in that situation, which has been designed with a massive flaw, that your neighbor is stealing  It could be that nothing really was stolen only misplaced or taken by mistake.  It could be that stuff was stolen and it was customers or even your kids doing it.  It could be that the customers got their products and lied about it to get refunds as well.  Or it could be that your neighbor is judicially taking things here or there.

What we know for sure is you created a system where it's not only trivially easy to engage in theft, its virtually impossible to get caught. 

What would you think, if you decided to add a camera that did point into the garage and your neighbor got the town to remove the camera by arguing that any the camera position that would show the inside of the garage or the hole directly, was illegally in a space that violated town zoning ordinances.  When you tried putting the camera inside, you found that your kids, your friends and occasionally their clients frequently turned it off, blocked it, intentionally or by accident, or even erased the recordings.  When you go to have the hole fixed, the neighbor enjoins you from having the work done by proving it will violate town noise and zoning ordinances to fix it.  When you hire someone to watch the area, the neighbor enjoins your security guard from staying on the property at night (which is when he makes his trips to the wall) because it violates town ordinances that prevent any commercial activity after dark, including a paid guard patrolling.

When no matter what reasonable plan you have to prevent the hole in the wall from being a point through which theft can occur or to monitor it, there's always a reason that it's completely unacceptable and prevented mostly by the neighbor in question.

How much of this has to occur before you begin to think there's another motive behind your neighbor obstructing every action to fix the flaw?  Sure you can't prove it, but you created a system designed with an enormous flaw, have suspicious activity and have an active program by the neighbor to prevent closing the flaw, which you'd be a fool to ignore. 

That's how vulnerable voting seems to me. 

We have tens of thousands of material polling sites, and millions of points of custody for voting before you even consider how much that has been expanded by the increase in mailed votes.  Many of those points of custody are hidden from observation by even those responsible for the election, heck even certain polling places have at times been so overwhelming controlled by one party that there isn't even an observer from the other side. 

Every push to change the rules by the DNC is to increase the time involved (meaning a system that relies heavily on volunteer workers becomes even more strained in efforts to provide security and confidence) and to increase the number of points of custody that are unmonitored and to lower any ability to close the flaws inherent in the system.  I mean honestly, it's illegal to offer anything of value for a vote, yet it's open "secret" that party operatives provide incentives to get people onto voting buses and get them to vote the way they want.  That's literal criminal voting interference and I suspect it moves the needle for no one.

When you consider there are over 600,000 postal employees the overwhelming majority of whom are in the chain of custody of votes often on a completely unmonitored basis, where any one of them can influence the process (and a couple were caught actually doing) by discarding votes, voting votes that weren't picked up, handing them over to other people to vote, post marking them illegally, failing to post mark them legally.  Have you ever worked ANYWHERE with more than 20 employees where there wasn't someone that you knew would undermine other employees, sabotage them or otherwise do improper actions or take shortcuts.  Have you ever worked someplace where there isn't a camera on the employee fridge and no lunch or snack was ever stolen? 

There's no chance at all, that there wasn't fraud involved, the only real argument is the claim that even though we have ZERO ways to accurately determine the fraud rate, it's not "material."  What's the basis for that claim?  Pretty much just wishing it's true.

We have a vulnerable system.  I get pretending its not vulnerable to give the country confidence in it, but that can't last when there are so many attacks on any reasonable attempts to make sure its secure.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 06:40:12 PM
Y-22,

“A 9% yearly number of people moving is grossly overestimating the number of people who were moving in October and requested a ballot be sent to the address they were moving away from. How many people do you think that is?”

I moved, within the same Utah zip code, last April. No “mail-in” ballot was sent to me at my current address despite timely reregistration. A new ballot was issued to me in person at my polling station. Would that ballot have been issued if someone submitted the unsolicited ballot linked to me in a dated voter role?

You believe that 9%/year average address change is too high for the month of October. Let’s cut that number in half to isolate Democrats. Cut it in half again to separate ethical Democrats. Cut that in half again to sift out cowards. There still remains 1.12%, which is enough to tip the scale in some of these counties.

“Dead people, again something easy to verify is fraudulent after the election. Also requires someone to have died relatively recently and the state to not have procedures to remove them from the voter rolls and for their surviving family to request a ballot in their name in order to vote. I still don't see either of these activities being widespread and I would wager what fraud does happen of this type is an effective wash politically. Neither party could have a mechanism for doing either of these things in a wide spread systematic way that would go unnoticed.”

No, the issuance of a ballot does not uniformly require a “request”. The required percentages are low, and cumulative with other fraudulent methods. The “mechanism” is pretty simple; individual initiative can double the voting power of a living family member who is motivated to “make a difference”, or rationalize that “this is what mom would have wanted”.

“The ballots have to be ‘real’ to be readable by the machines.“

Not Utah ballots, I could make them.

“And again if there is wide spread voter fraud/impersonation going on. It would be detectable after the fact. Take a sample of 2,000 people who cast a ballot and after the election go ask them if they voted. If you get 100 people who will swear they didn't then you have detected a voter fraud issue.”

A better method is to do a recount provided the signed envelopes were also saved. I think we will see a lot of that in the coming months.

“The Democratic observers were kept at the same distance away. With thousands of ballots being sent through the machines at a time the only thing observers can do at any distance away is to make sure each ballot is only sent through the machine once. And 6ft or 30ft you can verify that. If Pennsylvania failed to allow observers at the opening and readying of the ballots then take that up with their republican state legislature.”

It doesn’t matter if Democratic observers were kept at the same distance. It only matters who the ballots were supplied by. Possibly Democrats have become more ethical since the 1960 presidential election, but I doubt it. Your standards for presidential office are as low as anyone who I have ever discussed the issue with. Would you really care if Biden came to office fraudulently?

Grant,

“The fact that leaving the garage door open is stupid does not prove that theft occurred.“

True, but your analogy breaks down on precisely the crux of why *voluntarily* leaving the garage door open is “stupid”. There are few Republicans that think leaving the door open to voter fraud is a good idea, as a cursory reading of conservative comments on this thread illustrate.

”I can buy that mailing unsolicited ballots may present problems and opportunity for fraud.  But it is not evidence that fraud occurred.”

... And, strictly speaking, if I dump a bag of cash from a helicopter into Manhattan at lunch hour, and the streets are mysteriously spotless three minutes later, it is not “proof” that some people ended up with a free lunch. The question becomes; how oblivious do you have to be to believe otherwise?

“There's nothing.  If a system has too many loopholes, I support closing them.”

How about never promoting “loopholes” to begin with?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 07:04:21 PM
Quote
There's never going to be proof in that situation, which has been designed with a massive flaw, that your neighbor is stealing  It could be that nothing really was stolen only misplaced or taken by mistake.  It could be that stuff was stolen and it was customers or even your kids doing it.  It could be that the customers got their products and lied about it to get refunds as well.  Or it could be that your neighbor is judicially taking things here or there.

What we know for sure is you created a system where it's not only trivially easy to engage in theft, its virtually impossible to get caught.

That's some convoluted stuff right there, Serati.  But nothing changed.  The point was already made earlier with the idea that the system was vulnerable.  If the system is vulnerable, then fix it.  If you have proof find a lawyer and file a suit. 

Quote
We have a vulnerable system.  I get pretending its not vulnerable to give the country confidence in it, but that can't last when there are so many attacks on any reasonable attempts to make sure its secure.

Vulnerable to what level of fraud? 

1 fraudulent vote?
10?
100?

How many fraudulent votes would it take to sway the presidential election in Nevada?  There is currently a gap of roughly 12,000 votes?  Are you suggesting that there were 12 THOUSAND fraudulent votes made in Nevada this election?  12 THOUSAND? 

Who was capable of creating 12 thousand fraudulent votes?  Were there 12,000 democrats that each made one fraudulent vote, or just one guy named Soros? 

How many would have been needed in Wisconsin?  20 Thousand?  Were the same people behind all those fraudulent votes too, or was it a different group of swamp people?  The post office?  Or Chase Manhattan? 

How about Michigan?  150 thousand fraudulent votes?  Well that's got to be Chase Manhattan or Mitt Romney behind that one.  No other answer. 

There is currently a 60,000 vote gap between Trump and Biden in Pennsylvania. You figure that the dems are going to rustle up an extra 60,000 fraudulent votes? 

So altogether, your neighbors stealing the stuff out of your garage have stolen 242 THOUSAND votes so far.  But you didn't catch them on camera.  Because the truck they were using was on loan from Wonder Woman.  A quarter of a million votes were fraudulent this year. That's one hell of an accusation.  I'll let Karl Rove speak for me:

Quote
There are suspicious partisans across the spectrum who believe widespread election fraud is possible. Some hanky-panky always goes on, and there are already reports of poll watchers in Philadelphia not being allowed to do their jobs. But stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie. That isn’t going to happen.

There ya go.  I'll trust Karl Rove, who has worked in elections for quite a while.  I'll trust other people.  I think you're making mountains out of molehills and are doing some really neat mental gymnastics while trying to prove your point. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 05, 2020, 07:07:56 PM
I moved, within the same Utah zip code, last April. No “mail-in” ballot was sent to me at my current address despite timely reregistration. A new ballot was issued to me in person at my polling station. Would that ballot have been issued if someone submitted the unsolicited ballot linked to me in a dated voter role?

Of course.  Did you see any indication on the voter role in respect of those who'd already voted with mail in votes?  I didn't.  When you consider that those voter logs are maintained in thousands of separate hard copies, it's certainly possible that no one is adequately checking them to discard votes by the same voter already received in the mail.  Is it really possible that no one voted twice or even that there was not any case of an error in recording a vote that made it appear so?

I mean think about, you can't even verify whether a voter voted until after the in-person voting records are compiled and available, which means any mail-in vote separated from it's envelope prior to a point hours after close of polls almost certainly could not have been properly verified.  Any ballot opened without observers able to see the signature match (which is virtually all of them) is a fraud risk.

I read in some states you should shred your mailed ballot if you decide to vote in person, but very little about which vote counts if you vote in person and a mail in ballot is located.  Do they just discard the mailed ballot?  Those ballots would be evidence of potential voter fraud.  Seen any reports on the number of mail in ballots rejected because the voter voted in person (as some were advised where there was a risk their mailed ballot wouldn't be received in time).  Pretty sure I read in NJ the governor was advocating to discard the in-person vote in that situation.

Quote
“And again if there is wide spread voter fraud/impersonation going on. It would be detectable after the fact. Take a sample of 2,000 people who cast a ballot and after the election go ask them if they voted. If you get 100 people who will swear they didn't then you have detected a voter fraud issue.”

A better method is to do a recount provided the signed envelopes were also saved. I think we will see a lot of that in the coming months.

First the evidence of a sample of 2000 people would not just be evidence of voter fraud, it would be evidence of a stolen election and very likely there would be absolutely no recourse.  There's no way for instance, Biden would be removed in March if an exhaustive analysis detemines say an 85% probability that he won as a result of voter fraud.

Not sure they actually keep the approved ballot connected to the envelope (which has voter identification information on it), do you have knowledge they do?

I think it's interesting too, that opportunities for fraud and the benefits of it, generally support Democrats.  While it's true that Republicans are spread out with a larger number of polling locations, it's rarely true that they have the kind of overwhelming control of those locations that is absolutely common in Democratic polling locations, which also happen to have the kind of enormous number of votes that adding material numbers of votes, numbers that can flip an election, shows up as so statisticlally improbable that it becomes evidence of fraud.  The DNC is almost uniformly the beneficiary of voter fraud and almost uniformly in control of the largest voting areas where its both easier to conduct the fraud and easier to hide it from the kind of statistical analysis that is the only way you could pick it out in a secret ballot system.  When you add in their overwhelming opposition to any kind of fraud controls it's an interesting set of facts.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 05, 2020, 07:17:26 PM
Jake Tapper just commented on President Trump's speech at 7:00 pm ET on November 5 that I found insightful.

Mr. Tapper stated that Mr. Trump listed a set of Republican accomplishments such as not losing the senate, not losing any house seats, winning Florida, Iowa and other states.

Mr. Tapper then noted that Mr. Trump would have us believe that there is a vast conspiracy to submit sufficient fraudulent votes to defeat Donald J. Trump but allow all the republicans to win in every other instance that Mr. Trump cited. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 05, 2020, 07:53:24 PM
It reminds me of the Conservative Party after the last Canadian election. They trialed the idea of voter fraud but quickly shut up. I suspect it was because someone pointed out that voter fraud would be a lot easier in political heartlands, such as Alberta were the Conservatives ran up record-breaking number of votes to get their consolation price of a plurality of the popular vote.

If voter fraud is as easy as purported then it's simple explanation of why Trump beat the polls so consistently. Especially since the only reason Biden is currently winning is his surprise showing in Arizona. There is as much evidence for Trump cheating in Florida and Texas as there is for Biden cheating in Georgia and Pennsylvania, so both theories are valid.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 08:09:37 PM
Serati,

“Not sure they actually keep the approved ballot connected to the envelope (which has voter identification information on it), do you have knowledge they do?”

No, I am not certain that envelopes, and ballots, are kept together following a count in Utah. It makes sense that they should be, and the poll workers had zero difficulty identifying me to reissue a ballot, but I am making an optimist assumption that computer ballot issuance records correlate with records of a cast vote. Interestingly, even when we vote in person, the ballot is deposited into a collection box with a poll-worker present to verify the presence of an envelope signature. Hopefully, he would also object to a deposit of multiple ballots by a single individual. I should have asked.

Grant,

“How many fraudulent votes would it take to sway the presidential election in Nevada?  There is currently a gap of roughly 12,000 votes?  Are you suggesting that there were 12 THOUSAND fraudulent votes made in Nevada this election?  12 THOUSAND?”

Yes. Those numbers are obtainable under current circumstances, and it does not even require an “organizer” to accomplish. Ill conceived voting laws alone can induce that kind of distortion of vote tallies in a highly divided electorate. Even Biden thinks so . :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520532-biden-the-only-way-ill-lose-is-through-chicanery-at-polling-places%3famp
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 05, 2020, 08:13:57 PM
Yes. Those numbers are obtainable under current circumstances, and it does not even require an “organizer” to accomplish. Ill conceived voting laws alone can induce that kind of distortion of vote tallies in a highly divided electorate. Even Biden thinks so . :

Biden's wrong.  There is nothing to support this.  It's conspiracy theory level stuff. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 08:19:47 PM
Kidv,

“Mr. Tapper then noted that Mr. Trump would have us believe that there is a vast conspiracy to submit sufficient fraudulent votes to defeat Donald J. Trump but allow all the republicans to win in every other instance that Mr. Trump cited.”

Non sequitur.

Grant,

“Biden's wrong.  There is nothing to support this.  It's conspiracy theory level stuff.”

My argument does not necessitate “conspiracy”, only human nature.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 05, 2020, 08:22:35 PM
Pack it up and go home, everyone.

Humans undeniably have human nature, therefore Noel has won the argument.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 08:39:09 PM
Especially since the only reason Biden is currently winning is his surprise showing in Arizona.
Biden's current vote margin (2.0%) is slightly less than his projected margin (2.6% based on 538's final forecast).

So Biden is actually slightly underperforming in Arizona - which makes his current lead not a surprise.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 05, 2020, 08:40:21 PM
Biden's current vote margin (2.0%) is slightly less than his projected margin (based on 538's forecast).

So Biden is actually slightly underperforming in Arizona - which makes his current lead not a surprise.

Neat.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 08:42:04 PM
Yes. Those numbers are obtainable under current circumstances, and it does not even require an “organizer” to accomplish. Ill conceived voting laws alone can induce that kind of distortion of vote tallies in a highly divided electorate. Even Biden thinks so . :

Biden's wrong.  There is nothing to support this.  It's conspiracy theory level stuff.
It's weird that over-voting fraud is being conflated with the risk of the chicanery involved in throwing out legally cast votes to which Biden was referring. It's basically the exact opposite thing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 09:46:51 PM
Arizona is down to 46,000 votes.
Georgia is down to 12,500 votes.
Pennsylvania is down to 34,000 votes.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 09:52:42 PM
And the sad thing is this election is going to come down to about 100,000 votes spread across 4 states when 4,000,000 more people voted for Biden than Trump. And that is probably going to be 4.5 to 5 million by the time all the votes are counted in California and New York.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 05, 2020, 11:40:30 PM
The really sad thing is that Biden will assume office without the legitimacy which an electorate expects from constitutional process.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 05, 2020, 11:42:44 PM
The really sad thing is that Biden will assume office without the legitimacy which an electorate expects from constitutional process.

Why? Because you believe Trump when he claims fraud and shows you no evidence.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:50:12 PM
Georgia has, excluding any military votes that come in tomorrow, 14,000 remaining votes to tally.
Trump's lead is currently about 1,800.

If Biden receives 57% of the remaining votes, he'll take Georgia.
For context, over the 200,000 most recent votes counted (primarily mail-in) Biden captured about 70% of them to Trump's 30%. It will take a miracle for Trump's lead to hold in Georgia.

Pennsylvania is worse for the president: Trump's lead is down to 0.37% or about 25,000 votes. 
Over the most recent 240,000 votes counted in Pennsylvania, Biden has garnered 100,000 more votes than Trump. There are still about 250,000 votes to count, so if that trend holds, Biden's total will exceed Trump's by a good 75,000.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 05, 2020, 11:55:40 PM
The really sad thing is that Biden will assume office without the legitimacy which an electorate expects from constitutional process.
Cheer up!  Biden was able to hold on in the face of all that Republican vote fraud you are so worried about.  You should be thankful for the fantastic Democratic turnout, so that the Republican fraud wasn't able to sway the presidential election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 06, 2020, 01:36:32 AM
Y-22,

“Why? Because you believe Trump when he claims fraud and shows you no evidence.”

Dumb.

Donald,

”Cheer up!  Biden was able to hold on in the face of all that Republican vote fraud you are so worried about.  You should be thankful for the fantastic Democratic turnout, so that the Republican fraud wasn't able to sway the presidential election.“

... and dumber.

I had mixed feelings about conservatism inheriting the impending economic disaster, especially given that the economy is where Trump has staked his legacy claim. As I assess tangential election fallout, I am actually quite sanguine, and look forward with optimism to the political realignment coming in 2024.

- Conservatism has finally, for the first time in my life, locked in the Supreme Court for a generation. If Trump accomplished nothing else, this single achievement would have excused all of the Trumpian faceplants over the last four years.

- Trump brought to a high resolution the danger posed by an entrenched state bureaucracy that asserts entitlement to govern independently of the American people. I am grateful for that discovery, it will I form my future voting criteria.

- Trump exposed the CCP for the threat they are, and blew any pretense to the contrary out of the water.

- Trump has catalyzed new alliances in the Middle East, and legitimized Israel’s right to exist in a peaceful environment achievable through no previous administration’s efforts.

- Britain is once again on a path to revitalization, and American partnership, via Brexit.

- Trump opened up the Indo-Pacific as an American alliance, particularly in respect to India, which is poised to become the world’s next economic superpower. I recently learned that the Indian Navy is equipping their two aircraft carriers with F-18s, rather than the Su-33. This is a big deal, and I am hopeful that this has set a pattern of cooperation into the future.

- Trump has revitalized our military in a way that will easily survive four years of a Democratic administration.

- Trump has kept us out of foreign wars, as promised.

- Finally, Trump’s provocative style has tipped the left‘s hand on just how ideologically committed they are to the rule of law. The country will never be the same as a result, and it could not have come at a better time in our nation’s history.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 06, 2020, 03:24:42 AM
Kidv,

“Mr. Tapper then noted that Mr. Trump would have us believe that there is a vast conspiracy to submit sufficient fraudulent votes to defeat Donald J. Trump but allow all the republicans to win in every other instance that Mr. Trump cited.”

Non sequitur.



It's a rhetorical observation of the lack of awareness of the cognitive dissonance by the speaker in a speech, not a directly logical argument.  But it does allude to Occam's razor, whether it's more likely to have A) a vast fraudulent action to undermine Mr. Trump but fail to defeat any of other Republican candidates, or B) a vast network of people who support Republicans but specifically reject Mr. Trump.

To dismiss a thought on a logical fallacy, it would probably be helpful to explain the lack of any evidence for the initial evidence of the claim in the speech.  Where does that fit on the relative value of burden of proof and strength of argument?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 06, 2020, 04:04:58 AM
I moved, within the same Utah zip code, last April. No “mail-in” ballot was sent to me at my current address despite timely reregistration. A new ballot was issued to me in person at my polling station. Would that ballot have been issued if someone submitted the unsolicited ballot linked to me in a dated voter role?

Of course.  Did you see any indication on the voter role in respect of those who'd already voted with mail in votes?  I didn't.  When you consider that those voter logs are maintained in thousands of separate hard copies, it's certainly possible that no one is adequately checking them to discard votes by the same voter already received in the mail.  Is it really possible that no one voted twice or even that there was not any case of an error in recording a vote that made it appear so?

I mean think about, you can't even verify whether a voter voted until after the in-person voting records are compiled and available, which means any mail-in vote separated from it's envelope prior to a point hours after close of polls almost certainly could not have been properly verified.  Any ballot opened without observers able to see the signature match (which is virtually all of them) is a fraud risk.

I read in some states you should shred your mailed ballot if you decide to vote in person, but very little about which vote counts if you vote in person and a mail in ballot is located.  Do they just discard the mailed ballot?  Those ballots would be evidence of potential voter fraud.  Seen any reports on the number of mail in ballots rejected because the voter voted in person (as some were advised where there was a risk their mailed ballot wouldn't be received in time).  Pretty sure I read in NJ the governor was advocating to discard the in-person vote in that situation.


I'm puzzled by this assertion that printing out extra ballots would skip the database.  Any duplicates, if not flagged immediately, would get rejected or resolved as part of the final canvass before the final certification, right? Voter rolls and votes are not paper based.  Each ballot and / or voter is bar coded, which I would expect to be the same as a ticket to a concert or game.  You could print out a hundred, but the system is going to automatically be aware of a duplicate and could automatically reject any duplicate, or at least immediately flag the vote for determination of which is the correct vote.  I am holding a Utah ballot and envelope.   Each has a matching code and electronic  scannable marker.  If you're saying you could show up to vote in person while your paper ballot is in the mail, or a drop box, then of course that's possible, but I can't how see how the duplication won't be automatically noted and flagged as soon as it hits the database. 

At that point you'd follow rules - if one vote was fraudulent, the actual vote would count, and if both were submitted by the actual voter then there would be a rule [i.e. reasonable result could be having your vote cancelled for voting twice].  If they believe the signature doesn't matc, Utah (for instance) is supposed to contact the voter for clarification or to cure before rejecting the ballot.  So they could / should obviously be doing the same and flagging for possible fraud if there are 2 votes for the same voter.

[I don't mean this as partisan bickering - I'm not following how voters, linked to a database could successfully submit multiple votes. ] 
The signature, or the ability to forge one, is the only fail-safe in submitting a found ballot, but signatures have actually worked pretty well for a few hundred years.  If you're trying a commit voter fraud with people you know, knowing the signature you're trying to forge would at least give you a leg up, but trying to submit a ballot you've received at a dead address by guessing the signature probably isn't going to work.

The questions about the envelopes seem to answer themselves --- discarding the envelopes would be a problem, but since the envelope is bar coded and bears the signature, we could assume competence and that the envelopes are retained as are the ballots, at least until after final certification. 

So, if you vote in person, you will immediately be electronically logged.  If multiple paper ballots are submitted, either all votes for a voter will be rejected,  or the voter will affirm which vote is actual and which one is  fraudulent,

So I would only see being able to submit a fraudulent vote through the mail if the actual voter doesn't submit a vote, and you're able to successfully forge the match the signature which the election commission has on file.

Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 06:01:32 AM
Because, of course...
Quote
Tucker Carlson: Media must take a step back from the election and let our system work

It's entirely possible that someday soon the news media will decide to shut this election down.

The sad thing is, I can actually imagine those watching him vehemently nodding their heads...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 06:04:00 AM
Georgia is now in Biden's column, with thousands of mail in ballots left to count.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 06, 2020, 07:08:08 AM
The Republicans sure seem to know a whole bunch about how these bogus votes could be cast in such large numbers.  It's almost like they have a game plan for doing that which allows them to see how the other side could do it. Transference maybe?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 06, 2020, 08:00:10 AM
If the Senate splits 50/50 VP Harris then becomes the deciding vote on many issues.  Is there a Senate Majority and Minority Leader at that time? Does it default to the Dems if Harris is VP?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 08:04:59 AM
Y-22,

“Why? Because you believe Trump when he claims fraud and shows you no evidence.”

Dumb.

You're really channeling Trump now. Presented with your complete lack of evidence you result to insults.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 08:08:45 AM
Turning our gaze to North Carolina...

There's still about 5% of the vote outstanding, and if that vote is primarily uncounted mail in ballots, and assuming the mail in ballots in NC will behave somewhat like those in Pennsylvania and Georgia...

Mail in ballots in Pennsylvania have been breaking 75%/25% in favour of Biden.
In Georgia, the ratio is almost exactly the same - 74%/26% in favour of Biden.

With 95% of the votes tabulated in North Carolina, and with Trump leading Biden 2,732,120 to 2,655,383, Biden should easily overtake Trump and end up winning the state by about 1%.

The break even ratio where they end up tied would be 63.5%/36.5%.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 08:11:30 AM
I had mixed feelings about conservatism inheriting the impending economic disaster, especially given that the economy is where Trump has staked his legacy claim. As I assess tangential election fallout, I am actually quite sanguine, and look forward with optimism to the political realignment coming in 2024.

Yep, the democrats not taking back the senate is going to harm the economy severely. The minute Biden takes office McConnel is going to go into deficit reduction mode during a recession and make it worse.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 08:17:23 AM
In NC its potential outstanding ballots. They count everything that arrives through the 12th (pretty sure that's the right day) that is postmarked by election day. They are being conservative in the potential amount of outstanding vote in assuming they all get returned. Unless you start seeing those numbers move big and soon I think its reasonable to begin assuming a lot of those people chose not to vote absentee or aren't going to vote. NC is allowed to process and tabulate mail in ballots as they arrive so there wasn't a big backlog on election day for them to go through.

The outstanding ballots still matter for our local races in NC, there are some state wide races that are within about 10,000 votes but Trump and Tillis are very likely to maintain their leads.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 08:28:55 AM
It sounds like the Secret Service has now called it for Biden...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 08:32:00 AM
It sounds like the Secret Service has now called it for Biden...

Or they recognize that Trump trying to light a powder keg and are worried some nut or group will take a shot at Biden.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 08:38:49 AM
Maybe - but they're not sending resources to guard Anthony Fauci, and he is scheduled to be beheaded...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 08:40:55 AM
Arizona is down to 46,000 votes.
Georgia is down to 12,500 votes.
Pennsylvania is down to 34,000 votes.

Overnight things went a little more in Biden's favor.

Biden now leads:
Arizona by 47,000.
Georgia by 900.

Trump now leads:
Pennsylvania by 18,000.

There are enough votes left for Pennsylvania to go to Biden if he continues to win a high percentage of the outstanding vote. Arizona has enough votes outstanding to flip it but they aren't from areas that Trump is winning. Georgia is getting down to their last mail in ballots are are starting to go through provisional ballots now.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 08:45:14 AM
There are enough votes left for Pennsylvania to go to Biden if he continues to win a high percentage of the outstanding vote.

Actually, Biden only needs about 54% of the outstanding vote to take Pennsylvania... he's been getting about 75%
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: fizz on November 06, 2020, 08:54:58 AM
In the last update, in Pennsylvania, now its +5594 for Biden
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 09:04:52 AM
If the Senate splits 50/50 VP Harris then becomes the deciding vote on many issues.  Is there a Senate Majority and Minority Leader at that time? Does it default to the Dems if Harris is VP?

Harris would cast the tiebreaking vote for Senate Majority leader as well.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 06, 2020, 09:06:11 AM
 I think Trump knew he was going to loose and wanted the counting to stop so that he would not loose as bad, especially in the EC.  Biden may end up with at least 306 EC votes making his victory both EC and popular.

Now there are just the 2 seats in GA.  Will Trump turn up to help out the Republicans there? Or will he pout and short sheet the beds in the White House?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 06, 2020, 09:08:59 AM
Would she be up for the position of Majority Leader as President of the Senate?  I would think not.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 09:10:45 AM
I think Trump knew he was going to loose and wanted the counting to stop so that he would not loose as bad, especially in the EC.  Biden may end up with at least 306 EC votes making his victory both EC and popular.

Now there are just the 2 seats in GA.  Will Trump turn up to help out the Republicans there? Or will he pout and short sheet the beds in the White House?

Unfortunately I don't think it matters. With Biden winning I expect Republicans to turn up in large numbers to prevent a democratic sweep. There will also be a lot of independent minded voters in Georgia who like divided government and will support the Republican candidates. I'm guessing we're about to see the two most expensive run off elections in American history.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 06, 2020, 09:22:29 AM
Would she be up for the position of Majority Leader as President of the Senate?  I would think not.

She is not a senator, so no. It would be interesting for her to become active as president of the senate, though the position holds little power.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 09:22:58 AM
This is the point in the cycle where a normal candidate would call his opponent and concede, from a purely numerical perspective.  It's been clear to his team since Wednesday that the votes would give Biden Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona, and possibly Georgia as well.  But until Biden was actually leading, there was no chance of a concession.

But is there any chance of that happening?  It seems like his re-election team is all in on trying to win via... magic.  He's going to have to get at least 3 separate state houses to turn on their own voters.  And there's simply no appetite for that in Pennsylvania for sure, and I just don't see it in Arizona either. Michigan? Uh, no.  Georgia? 

The only question is what will he do for the next 2.5 months.  Hopefully, he'll be too distracted with the election to set the country on fire any more than his electoral temper tantrum is doing already.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 09:27:34 AM
I think Trump knew he was going to loose and wanted the counting to stop so that he would not loose as bad, especially in the EC.  Biden may end up with at least 306 EC votes making his victory both EC and popular.

Now there are just the 2 seats in GA.  Will Trump turn up to help out the Republicans there? Or will he pout and short sheet the beds in the White House?

Jeez.  Trump lost in Georgia.  Why would they want him to show up and remind people that they are connected with him?  It's more likely that with Trump gone, Democrat turnout will drop because L'etron Orange has been vanquished.  The GOP is about to make Georgia "the last best hope for mankind" in their ads.  Their desperation and fear will be motivation enough. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 09:32:33 AM
All the relevant states are still close enough I don't blame Trump for not conceding today. I think Pennsylvania is only likely to become more solidly for Biden as the last 2-3% of the vote is tallied. Arizona seems likely to continue on without a big shift in the margin. Georgia could still change with provisional, military, and the last few ballots being counted. Nevada seems unlikely to change as well but its close enough I don't blame Trump for not conceding it.

What I hope is that a week from today when state election commissions certify their results showing Biden won that Trump will concede and exit the stage gracefully. But that's a pipe dream. Trump will file as many frivolous lawsuits as he can. Trump will sow discord and division across the nation. The only real question is if he will leave the white house willingly or if the secret service will have to "escort" him off the grounds back to Mara-Lago.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 09:45:42 AM
The only real question is if he will leave the white house willingly or if the secret service will have to "escort" him off the grounds back to Mara-Lago.

Cocaine Mitch, The Swamp-Thing, will rise out of the swamp and he and John Thune are going to drag Trump back to Margo Lago and then blow it up, carrying Heather Locklear to safety. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 09:53:21 AM
yoss, you're looking at the colour on the map, and not the outstanding votes.  There's a reason Fox News (!) called Arizona.  The other MSM cannot because they are afraid of being labelled as in the Dems' pocket, but the numbers behind the colours don't show Arizona in play.  The same is true in Georgia, where Biden is up by 1100 and where that margin will continue increasing until all the mail in ballots have been counted.  There are still ~8,000 mail in ballots left to count in GA, the majority from Gwinnett county.  Biden's lead is going to expand by 4,000 before that count is done.  Provisional and as yet to be received military (military was polled as favouring Biden anyway) simply won't cut into that margin.

The Trump team also knows this.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 10:03:03 AM
yoss, you're looking at the colour on the map, and not the outstanding votes.  There's a reason Fox News (!) called Arizona.  The other MSM cannot because they are afraid of being labelled as in the Dems' pocket, but the numbers behind the colours don't show Arizona in play.  The same is true in Georgia, where Biden is up by 1100 and where that margin will continue increasing until all the mail in ballots have been counted.  There are still ~8,000 mail in ballots left to count in GA, the majority from Gwinnett county.  Biden's lead is going to expand by 4,000 before that count is done.  Provisional and as yet to be received military (military was polled as favouring Biden anyway) simply won't cut into that margin.

The Trump team also knows this.

I generally look at the AP map which also has Arizona called for Biden. I'm just being cautious. I am reasonably confident that Biden wins Arizona, Nevada, and Penn. But I can understand not conceding a race until those vote tallies are complete. Georgia is likely to go Biden but any margin under 5k is tenuous.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 10:13:43 AM
Vote tallies are almost never complete at the time the losing candidate concedes :)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 10:52:49 AM
Vote tallies are almost never complete at the time the losing candidate concedes :)

I agree, but if the tallies were slightly in the other direction I wouldn't want Biden to concede yet either. The votes across several key states are close enough that I think its reasonable for both sides to wait until the first unofficial totals are announced by election officials or until the margins are larger.

What isn't acceptable is Trump throwing a temper tantrum and claiming the election is being stolen from him because ballots are being counted as prescribed by the relevant laws in their jurisdictions. Just more evidence of how dangerous Trump is for our country and democracy.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 06, 2020, 10:55:32 AM
Requesting proper recounts in close races is much more common than preemptive concession.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 06, 2020, 11:04:35 AM
Apparently Trump or the GOP will need to pay for a recount in WI. Given the issues they had paying for buses, I'd require them to pay in advance.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:40:01 AM
Would she be up for the position of Majority Leader as President of the Senate?  I would think not.

She presides over the Senate as the VP, being the Majority Leader is technically a demotion. Although fuctionally Majority Leader is the more powerful position.

That and I'm pretty sure Senate bylaws require the Majority Leader to actually be a Senator. Meanwhile, anyone can be Speaker of the House, they've simply never elected anyone into that position who wasn't already elected into the House of Representatives.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:43:03 AM
I think Trump knew he was going to loose and wanted the counting to stop so that he would not loose as bad, especially in the EC.  Biden may end up with at least 306 EC votes making his victory both EC and popular.

Now there are just the 2 seats in GA.  Will Trump turn up to help out the Republicans there? Or will he pout and short sheet the beds in the White House?

Unfortunately I don't think it matters. With Biden winning I expect Republicans to turn up in large numbers to prevent a democratic sweep. There will also be a lot of independent minded voters in Georgia who like divided government and will support the Republican candidates. I'm guessing we're about to see the two most expensive run off elections in American history.

And as I pointed out earlier, a substantial portion of Biden's support this cycle (up to 30% according to some exit polling data from CNN) came in the form of anti-Trump rather than Pro-Biden/Democrat.

If Trump isn't going to be PotUS for much longer, then the anti-Trump contingent has no reason to vote in the Senate run-off election as the outcome of that election has no meaningful bearing on Trump's ability to potentially govern.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:51:40 AM
Vote tallies are almost never complete at the time the losing candidate concedes :)

That's become it almost never happens that an elections outcome hinges on a single percentage point with of voters in a given polling area.

And in this case, it's happening in multiple locations nationally.

In tight races, it isn't unheard of for the concession to happen months after the winner was to assume office. Although in the case of the US Presidential Election process, it doesn't actually require concession on the part of either party involved. Congress is going to decide the winner, and once that happens, the show is over. And with the Democrats holding a majority in the House and in the combined session, even if they don't control the Senate, there is no reason to suspect that Congress is going to try to manipulate the EC votes in any way... Or that they're going to be given the ability to do so in any case(States sending two different sets of electoral results).
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:55:22 AM
What isn't acceptable is Trump throwing a temper tantrum and claiming the election is being stolen from him because ballots are being counted as prescribed by the relevant laws in their jurisdictions. Just more evidence of how dangerous Trump is for our country and democracy.

Of note here: The eyerolling that the Republicans and Conservatives are doing in response to that should tell you all you need to know about how much of a threat that isn't.

Yes, he has "his base" that is rabid enough to eat that up, but they're not enough to be decisive in any meaningful way.

Now the actual examples of fraud he's coming up with, that's different. But you'd be correct about simply counting ballots which were properly received not being fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:57:10 AM
Apparently Trump or the GOP will need to pay for a recount in WI. Given the issues they had paying for buses, I'd require them to pay in advance.

They didn't have a problem paying for the buses. They had a problem with getting the buses through all of the traffic that happened after the event concluded. Poor traffic management planning != poor financials.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 11:57:49 AM
Arizona is down to 46,000 votes.
Georgia is down to 12,500 votes.
Pennsylvania is down to 34,000 votes.

Overnight things went a little more in Biden's favor.

Biden now leads:
Arizona by 47,000.
Georgia by 900.

Trump now leads:
Pennsylvania by 18,000.

There are enough votes left for Pennsylvania to go to Biden if he continues to win a high percentage of the outstanding vote. Arizona has enough votes outstanding to flip it but they aren't from areas that Trump is winning. Georgia is getting down to their last mail in ballots are are starting to go through provisional ballots now.

Latest updates in:
Biden leads
Nevada: 22,000 (+10,000 change from yesterday)
Arizona: 44,000 (-3,000 from the morning)
Georgia: 1,500  (+600 from morning)
Penn    : 9,000  (+27,000 from morning)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 12:00:04 PM
What isn't acceptable is Trump throwing a temper tantrum and claiming the election is being stolen from him because ballots are being counted as prescribed by the relevant laws in their jurisdictions. Just more evidence of how dangerous Trump is for our country and democracy.

Of note here: The eyerolling that the Republicans and Conservatives are doing in response to that should tell you all you need to know about how much of a threat that isn't.

Yes, he has "his base" that is rabid enough to eat that up, but they're not enough to be decisive in any meaningful way.

Now the actual examples of fraud he's coming up with, that's different. But you'd be correct about simply counting ballots which were properly received not being fraud.

I would prefer to see more Republicans come out like Hogan and Romney with something stronger than an eyeroll to throw a wet blanket on Trump's conspiracy theories about the vote being stolen.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 12:15:29 PM
I would prefer to see more Republicans come out like Hogan and Romney with something stronger than an eyeroll to throw a wet blanket on Trump's conspiracy theories about the vote being stolen.

Romney is likely trying to set himself up for a possible 2024 Presidential run, although that could be a big maybe, given he'll be 77 by then. Depending on how Biden's term of office (as he's about to turn 78 this month) turns out, there just may not be an appetite for electing another old guy who could fall to strokes or dementia while in office. (His parents living to be 88 and 89 tends to suggest he could at least live long enough to serve two terms in office though)

IF Biden is on the Ballot, I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney participate in the Primaries at the least. If Biden isn't on the ballot, Romney will likely sit it out. But based on 2012, Romney's ability to beat Biden is a big maybe in my book.

Better to field a younger candidate that can show more vigor and dynamicism. Romney's too much of a stuffed suit, and by 2024 he's going to be an old stuffed suit.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 06, 2020, 12:27:50 PM
What isn't acceptable is Trump throwing a temper tantrum and claiming the election is being stolen from him because ballots are being counted as prescribed by the relevant laws in their jurisdictions. Just more evidence of how dangerous Trump is for our country and democracy.

Of note here: The eyerolling that the Republicans and Conservatives are doing in response to that should tell you all you need to know about how much of a threat that isn't.

Yes, he has "his base" that is rabid enough to eat that up, but they're not enough to be decisive in any meaningful way.

Now the actual examples of fraud he's coming up with, that's different. But you'd be correct about simply counting ballots which were properly received not being fraud.

Is a mistake to think that 'His base' isn't the republican base and not decisive enough in a meaningful way
If this election proves anything it shows that almost half of the country believes and lives in the reality as painted by Trump/Fox.
For those not speaking out silence (eye role) is acceptance
- the snake and fox are in the hen house.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 06, 2020, 12:42:14 PM
It sounds like the Secret Service has now called it for Biden...

Or they take into account the general atmosphere when allocating their resources.

There are crazies on both sides, yes, but it's the Trump figurehead actively creating a narrative of democracy being overturned via cheating and corruption. There's only one side desperately throwing out sparks that could set off a zealot bonfire and it's not only brown people who are able to get into the mindset that it's okay if they die so long as they take out some of the Enemy.


That being said if Biden and his camp possess half a brain they will have employed a legion of private security long before now for precisely this reason.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 12:49:21 PM
"Trump's Base" loves Trump. They have no problem with how he says and does things.

Republicans and Conservatives on the other hand? They might love a number of things he did, but they hate or even loathe many of the things he has said, and take issue with how he has done them. But in this era of "take no prisoners politics" nuance is lost, and especially with Trump, speaking out against him on anything means losing the ability to work with him on anything. So it's easier to simply not avoid saying anything.

Even without Trump being Trump, the media loves to use those "nuance points" to slam wedges into them and hammer away at them. Or did you not notice how very few(none) Democrats were willing to cross the aisle even on things that the Republicans/Trump were correct about if it was deemed a "partisan issue" by their activist base?

Hopefully Biden allows up have at least a brief respite from the hyper-partisanship, but I'm not holding my breath. The TDS crowd is reading things into this election that simply aren't there, and if they spend the next 2 years operating from that mindset, they're going to be reliving 2010 all over again in 2022, only it's likely to be an even bigger blow-out. Which should make 2024 even more amusing as they'll likely take 2022 to mean "it's ever worse than we thought!"
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DJQuag on November 06, 2020, 01:27:00 PM
I think the main difference between this year and 16 is that the voters in 20 had had four years of Trump in action to consider.

Clinton in 16 was an underwhelming candidate, neck deep in the swamp. So is Biden. Except this year enough people had seen Trump's true colors and went the other way.

The social democratic vote is still underestimated because the beuracracy in both parties are terrified of it, but if the right message is put forth to vote *for* something instead of *against* something in Georgia it'll be a tighter campaign then some think.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 01:34:58 PM
The Republicans were calling for Gore to concede when Florida had a margin of fewer than 600 votes.

But my point had more to do with the mail in numbers that everybody knew were on the way.  Georgia is not close anymore, with no path left for Trump. Pennsylvania is going to go to Biden by 2-3%.  Fox has already called Arizona.  Biden already has an extra state in the bag and doesn't even need Nevada, where he is also leading.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 01:55:07 PM
The Republicans were calling for Gore to concede when Florida had a margin of fewer than 600 votes.

But my point had more to do with the mail in numbers that everybody knew were on the way.  Georgia is not close anymore, with no path left for Trump. Pennsylvania is going to go to Biden by 2-3%.  Fox has already called Arizona.  Biden already has an extra state in the bag and doesn't even need Nevada, where he is also leading.

Republicans were wrong in 2000. I'm willing to be patient, just wish Trump was saying we want every vote counted and we'll see who wins instead of his stupid I won and its being stolen bombast.

Georgia is close but highly unlikely to flip back. Penn is the still the clincher. Biden seems to be adding to his lead by about 1,000 votes per hour. Once the election officials in Penn finish updating totals tonight showing Biden leading by 20k+ votes I think a concession should be expected. Trump isn't normal and I don't expect him to ever admit defeat. I think he will be pursuing lawsuits and claiming fraud with no evidence for the next few weeks, months, and maybe years. It will be extremely detrimental to the country but Trump isn't going to care. I'm happy with the outcome of the election, I wish it had been a blowout so there wouldn't be any room for controversy but I'm very glad it looks like the election isn't going to be hinging on a single state. I think the map isn't changing again and Biden wins with 306 electoral college votes and in the popular vote 4.5 million more votes than Trump.

We'll see if there is anything Biden can do to help unite the country with Trump spending the next month whipping his supporters into a frenzy over voter fraud conspiracy theories. Maybe Biden can offer Trump and his family a pardon to get Trump to quit fanning the flames. Because the only thing that will get Trump to quit acting like a jackass and ripping the country apart would be to offer him something that personally benefits himself.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 06, 2020, 01:56:35 PM
"Trump's Base" loves Trump. They have no problem with how he says and does things.

Republicans and Conservatives on the other hand? They might love a number of things he did, but they hate or even loathe many of the things he has said, and take issue with how he has done them. But in this era of "take no prisoners politics" nuance is lost, and especially with Trump, speaking out against him on anything means losing the ability to work with him on anything. So it's easier to simply not avoid saying anything.

In my opinion its what Trump says and method that makes him dangerous. I understand Republicans/Conservatives preferring his policies but staying silent on his method and the things he says Is acceptance of his method of governance and 'leading'.   

I do agree that the cable news focus on trump tweets and not context to policy for ratings has exasperated things. When every tweet becomes the next "big" news story its no wonder nothing stuck.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 06, 2020, 02:01:26 PM
Trump will be roaming the countryside having "Stolen Election" rallies for the rest of his life. He never even gave up birtherism until the late stages of his Presidency. The standard norms of former Presidents will not even begin to occur to him. We'll still be subject to his tweets and general mayhem, the only thing that will change is that he can no longer sign executive orders.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: LetterRip on November 06, 2020, 02:12:48 PM
Trump will be roaming the countryside having "Stolen Election" rallies for the rest of his life. He never even gave up birtherism until the late stages of his Presidency. The standard norms of former Presidents will not even begin to occur to him. We'll still be subject to his tweets and general mayhem, the only thing that will change is that he can no longer sign executive orders.

Unless he dies shortly after leaving office, I think he will be spending most of his time in courts and jail.  The number of state and federal lawsuits that will proceed once he leaves office are numerous.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 02:43:16 PM
The media has gotten really reluctant to finish calling the race. I feel like they're hoping Trump will concede and in absence of that they are going to wait for one of the key states to put a 100% of the vote counted before they make a call to put Biden over the top. Probably a good public relations decision even if the writing is on the wall in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.

Also I think they would be fairly safe calling NC and Alaska for Trump.

Georgia is close enough I would wait for the 100% call. It would be highly unlikely for Trump to win whatever votes remain by more than the difference but with a margin of 1,500 votes I would hold off on calling that one as well.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 02:48:26 PM
Republicans were wrong in 2000.
Well, yes - that why I said that wasn't really my point.  It was that once it becomes clear that one has no path to victory, that the opponent is guaranteed a victory, traditionally, the defeated candidate acknowledges defeat for the good of the country.

There was no doubt, as of EOD Wednesday, that Trump no longer could win - but admittedly, it would be nearly impossible to concede at that point given that he still had leads in the counted ballots  in Pennsylvania and Georgia.  That's why I only made the concession point once Biden had overtaken him in those states.  And yes, I don't think anybody expected Trump to concede, anyway; he's been pretty clear about not caring about the good of the country.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 06, 2020, 02:50:24 PM
It is curious that they called Arizona so quickly but not Nevada. I doubt we'll see enough of their math to know if there's a statistical reason they're still holding off declaring another state for Biden (and therefore the whole election) or if they are being overly cautious as you suggest.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 06, 2020, 02:58:14 PM
Rush is sure that all of the other Networks are waiting to make Fox announce it and call Biden the winner first, so they can embarrass them.  That if Fox does it first, they will not be responsible for how Trump's followers react.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 06, 2020, 03:01:04 PM
It is curious that they called Arizona so quickly but not Nevada. I doubt we'll see enough of their math to know if there's a statistical reason they're still holding off declaring another state for Biden (and therefore the whole election) or if they are being overly cautious as you suggest.

I think with a president other than Trump and the way he has attacked the media they would call Pennsylvania for Biden at this point. Likewise I think that Biden going from an 8k to a 20k lead in Nevada would have gotten the a call as well if that wouldn't put Biden at 270. I really think this is the media showing restraint on a story to stop the president from turning the election into an assault on the media.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 03:07:42 PM
Part of the bind that the media are in is that they have been championing the idea that all votes should be counted.

That shouldn't preclude them from making the call when the numbers are obvious, and in past elections, states might have been called with far less of the vote in.  However, getting the populace, especially Trump supporters, to accept that because mail-in ballot trends are what they are, Trump has no chance is going to be an uphill battle.   I think having especially the media organizations that the right wing of the country view as being in the pocket of the Dems call the election for the Dems before Trump is mathematically eliminated is a recipe for confusion and possibly... very heated reactions.  The media is just being responsible by not making the call at this point.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 03:08:32 PM
Are we there yet? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 03:09:39 PM
Don't make me stop the car.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 03:17:35 PM
Portland started rioting on Tuesday... or would that simply be they've continued rioting?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 06, 2020, 03:21:02 PM
Is it to much to hope that the Main Stream Media will take a moment to reflect on how they report news?
When 80%+ of the 24 coverage is editorial, opinion and speculation, much of which has little informing value the need to take a hard look.

The CNN format of presenting a editorial and then picking pundents for and against to fight it out is absurd especially as the moderator isn't natural.  and almost everyone of their political programs follows that format.
 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 03:49:31 PM
A fascinating map showing the delineation between the Swamp wing of the GOP, and the Holy Orange Fire of National Loyalty and Purity Against The Evil Libs and Globalists wing.  Orange shows where Trump overperformed the GOP Senate candidate (I didn't make this map).  Blue shows where the GOP senate candidate overperformed Trump. 

https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1324769025533116417/photo/1

My plan is for Maine to strike south and take NH, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.  Georgia and Tennessee will strike into the Carolinas.  Texas and Louisiana will band together to march into Oklahoma and Kansas.  Everyone else just hold your ground.  And we nuke Mississippi and Alabama from orbit.  Just to be sure.  I will be putting this plan forth in the next Chase Manhattan board meeting. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 06, 2020, 03:50:45 PM
Kidv,

“It's a rhetorical observation of the lack of awareness of the cognitive dissonance by the speaker in a speech, not a directly logical argument.”

I read it as being a clear, and fallacious, argument.

“But it does allude to Occam's razor, whether it's more likely to have A) a vast fraudulent action to undermine Mr. Trump but fail to defeat any of other Republican candidates, or B) a vast network of people who support Republicans but specifically reject Mr. Trump.“

Tapper does reduce his argument to a binary choice, which is fine provided that there are, in fact, only two possible conclusions.

“To dismiss a thought on a logical fallacy, it would probably be helpful to explain the lack of any evidence for the initial evidence of the claim in the speech.  Where does that fit on the relative value of burden of proof and strength of argument?”

Taper makes a wholly unjustified assumption that all Republicans vote for Trump in equal proportion to down-ballot Republican candidates, and that both Independents, and blue-collar Democrats, are not a deciding factor in Trump’s success. The Trump vote is separable from a Republican party-line vote, and this would be reflected in fraudulent ballots. Trump’s strength within the Republican Party came from outside the Party. Identity politics, adopted by both Hillary, and Joe, have very effectively alienated the traditional Democratic base. Hillary’s “deplorables” were formally her parties core voting block.

Regarding Utah ballot duplication, the form is easy to recreate, but not bar codes. I did not see them. Hopefully computerized cross-referencing does immediately flag double cast ballots, but that brings new problems. If both votes are deleted on election night, then someone has been effectively disenfranchised. If both are counted, someone has been disenfranchised. If the phone number written on the ballot is used to track down the voter on election night, that may be a solution, but it still leaves the fraudulent voter free of accountability, and therefore risk. As you pointed out, if I failed to vote in person, the fraudulent voter’s choices would stand.

It is better to require voters to reregister every election cycle, appear in-person with identification at their polling station, and cast a secret ballot. That process avoids the “undue pressure“ factor of even safe-guarded absentee ballot systems, which would need to be perpetuated out of necessity, not convenience.

Y-22,

”Yep, the democrats not taking back the senate is going to harm the economy severely. The minute Biden takes office McConnel is going to go into deficit reduction mode during a recession and make it worse.”

I fully expect McConnell to be as scrupulously cooperative with Biden as the House has been with Trump over the last four years. Call it Karma. That is, however, an entirely different issue than what I am alluding to. No president, with any economic policy, is going to be able to prevent a very painful deleveraging that has been building in severity since 2008. Given the irrationality of the electorate, reference COVID, I am happy to have Biden in office when this bubble bursts. That he has decided to assist the collapse through public policy simply fixes his fingerprints on the outcome.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 06, 2020, 05:29:42 PM
More fascinating than any other story to me is how the voting totals break down state by state.  I'll get into a little of that below. 

In the meantime, I don't see any reasonable reason that Fox and every other network hasn't called this for Biden, at least as an initial matter and subject to any recounts or late surprises.  Their probability analysis has had to be over 95% since yesterday and it's their duty to report reality, not what anyone might wish reality was.  If I were the one in charge, I'd've called it for Biden a while ago.

I would prefer to see more Republicans come out like Hogan and Romney with something stronger than an eyeroll to throw a wet blanket on Trump's conspiracy theories about the vote being stolen.

That's how I felt during the Gore "recount" in Florida.  It's absurd to demand of the opposition what we wouldn't demand from our own team.

It's also absurd to label voter fraud as a conspiracy theory.  Voter fraud is detected in every election, notwithstanding that our "system" as modified through last minute court orders makes it virtually impossible to detect it for any of the most likely vectors for which it occurs.  It's almost certainly, a tip of the iceberg situation when we catch any at all.

Don't mistake the preference of the Elites on both sides to pretend there's no vote fraud, and therefore that their own power is totally legitimate, with reality.

Romney is likely trying to set himself up for a possible 2024 Presidential run, although that could be a big maybe, given he'll be 77 by then.

Romney is done as a national candidate.  The media may try to prop him up as a candidate (the way they did for both John McCain and then Donald Trump in 2016) because they know he's never getting turn out from the Republican base ever again.  In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

In my opinion its what Trump says and method that makes him dangerous. I understand Republicans/Conservatives preferring his policies but staying silent on his method and the things he says Is acceptance of his method of governance and 'leading'.

And what is staying silent on the blatant media manipulation of how what he says is presented?  I've watched many press conferences beginning to end, and found that the media reported version misrepresented what was said in the worst possible ways.  I mean, again, the debunked claim on what Trump said in Charlottsville was literally brought in the first debate, has been repeated thousands of times, and was debunked and untrue on the first day it was written by the press. 

Claiming, as Wayward frequently does, that he's using Trump's own words is sophistry when he may say something correctly 11 times in a press conference, leave no confusion or ambiguity and then the media pulls the 12th occasion where there was ambiguity out to use out of context to create a false impression.  Even when it's a direct tweet the context is often stripped, explanation is always stripped and interpretations are often added that deliberately misconstrue it.  I mean it's trivially easy to pull Biden's words out to show anything you want, he mispeaks in every public interaction, but you don't see the mainstream press EVER straining to highlight it - in fact they bury it.

If you want "Republicans" to speak out about what Trump says, you need to get the media to report accurately first so that there can be a real debate.   

I think the main difference between this year and 16 is that the voters in 20 had had four years of Trump in action to consider.

Clinton in 16 was an underwhelming candidate, neck deep in the swamp. So is Biden. Except this year enough people had seen Trump's true colors and went the other way.

And this back to what i opened with.  I think you came to a very interesting conclusion here.  What you see if you look at the state by state results is not a story that voters changed their minds, in fact, Trump pretty much increased his voter support across the Board in every state and with key demographics that were "impossible" groups that "hate him."  He got more female voters, more black voters, more hispanic voters across the board.  The difference here is a massive change in turn out.

Let's set a rough baseline, and take a look at VA for example, 2016 roughly, 2m to 1.8m or so in favor of Hillary, and in 2020 2.3m to 1.9 Biden.  Roughly a 10-15% voter increase.  Or say Kansas, 670k to 430k in favor of Trump, to 750k to 550k in favor of Trump, 15-20% voter increase.  NY, 4.55m to 2.8m to Clinton, now at 3.7m to 2.85m in Biden's favor with 78% reporting (so rough justice it finishes at 4.75m to 3.65m, for a 10-15% increase).

What about the battleground states?

GA - 2.1m to 1.9 Trump in 2016, 2.5 to 2.5 Biden in 2020.  Around 25%.
NC - 2.36m to 2.19m Trump, 2.73 to 2.65 Trump.  Increase of about 15-20%
PA - 2.97 to 2.93 Trump, 3.3 to 3.3 Biden.  Increase of about 10-12% (maybe more not clear to me what the final totals will be).
TX - 4.68m to 3.88m Trump, 5.86 to 5.21 (with 85% reporting, do that mean this ends up roughly at 6.9 to 6.1 for Trump?  That would be around a 50% increase.  Even now its at a 30% increase (Trump's increase is roughly 25% in line with national averages, Biden's though is already at 35%, if the higher totals are true, Trump had almost a 50% increase and Biden almost a 60% increase).  May call into question what money does in a race, when you dramatically outspend your opponent and his voting total increase almost matches yours.
MI - 2.28 to 2.27 Trump, 2.8 to 2.65 Biden.  Increase of about 19%.

Seems like roughly 20% more voters is most "safe" states, with lower total increases as you'd expect in some states that were back to back battle grounds, with a big jump in TX as a "new" battleground.

So let's test that battle ground supression theory and look at Fl.  FL - 4.61 to 4.5 Trump, and 5.66 to 5.28 Trump.  A 20% increase for a repeated battleground.  Maybe that just means FL was "battle-grounded out" because of its repeated status and just shared in the general voting boost that applied country wide.

I mean, it's too early to pick the exact national increase, but Trump has already beaten the total that Hillary got in 2016 and Biden is even further out in front of that (heck Trump is going to beat the total votes Obama got in both 2012 and 2008 as the loser of the popular vote in 2020).
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 05:41:26 PM

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.   

Well, it's already looking like I was half-right here.  Pelosi just had to spend most of a Democratic Caucus conference call defending the brand from centrist Democrats tearing her and Tha Squad a new one.  All while the entire thing was being leaked to the press and driving leadership nuts.  But no humility there.  Pelosi refuses to see what members of her own party are telling her.  Defunding the police and socialism were not winners in middle America. But, hey, keep digging that hole. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: LetterRip on November 06, 2020, 05:46:14 PM
Eligible voting population has increased from 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 years ago, so comparing candidates on raw numbers isn't very meaningful.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 05:55:26 PM
Eligible voting population has increased from 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 years ago, so comparing candidates on raw numbers isn't very meaningful.

But we have had Presidential election cycles where voter turnout dropped from cycle to cycle.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 05:58:18 PM

I doubt the Democratic Congress will have any humility.   

Well, it's already looking like I was half-right here.  Pelosi just had to spend most of a Democratic Caucus conference call defending the brand from centrist Democrats tearing her and Tha Squad a new one.  All while the entire thing was being leaked to the press and driving leadership nuts.  But no humility there.  Pelosi refuses to see what members of her own party are telling her.  Defunding the police and socialism were not winners in middle America. But, hey, keep digging that hole.

The "Fun" scenario is the Speaker of the House is voted on by the House at large. With the smaller Democratic Majority in the House, it doesn't take many Democratic "defectors" to allow the Republicans to seat someone as the Speaker instead of Pelosi. The Republicans and the defectors just have to agree on who that person would be. (Which means they likely deviate from simply making the current Minority Leader the Speaker) But that may be a bridge too far for the Republicans.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 06:00:08 PM
Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 06, 2020, 07:10:00 PM
Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...

I hear there are military ballots to be counted still, and those are typically majority Republican, so Georgia can still flip back the other way.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 07:11:04 PM
The "Fun" scenario is the Speaker of the House is voted on by the House at large. With the smaller Democratic Majority in the House, it doesn't take many Democratic "defectors" to allow the Republicans to seat someone as the Speaker instead of Pelosi. The Republicans and the defectors just have to agree on who that person would be. (Which means they likely deviate from simply making the current Minority Leader the Speaker) But that may be a bridge too far for the Republicans.

Yeah.  I don't think the Dems will go with Kevin McCarthy.  The most important factor is that if the Centrist Dems go in that direction, the rest of the party would never forgive them.  They need to outnumber the progressives within their own caucus and put one of their own in there.  But I'm not sure they have the numbers.  You have to differentiate between Dems that are just centrist, and Dems that are not only centrist but are in tight districts and afraid of losing their seats in 2022.  How many of those are left? 

But for fun's sake, who could the centrist Dems agree on to support from the Republican party?  That could also get enough Republican support?  Will Hurd? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 07:12:08 PM
Georgia just reported a bunch of counted ballots - looks like the bulk of the remaining ballots.  Biden is now up by ~4200... but none of the big players is calling Georgia for Biden yet...

Decision Desk did.  But don't think they count as a "big player". 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 07:14:16 PM
Will Hurd?

Ooops.  Nevermind.  Will Hurd quit. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 06, 2020, 08:31:22 PM
Quote
"What a campaign needs to do to staff one statewide recount, let alone multiple recounts, is overwhelming," said Benjamin Ginsberg, a top Republican election lawyer who served as national counsel to Bush's campaigns.
"Bush v. Gore was one state. We put out a call and hundreds of lawyers, political operatives and many others responded," Ginsberg said. "Even with that, it taxed the Party to its limits to do just one state. It is at best unproven that the Trump campaign can command the sort of infrastructure they would really need to pull this off."

Quote
"The frustration that the President is expressing about the seeming unwillingness of his legal team to take certain positions is not unusual in that there are a lot of cases when clients want their lawyers to take action that the lawyers simply don't see as viable," said Ashley Taylor, an attorney who has represented Republican candidates in recounts and other election law issues.

link (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/trump-legal-team/index.html)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 06, 2020, 09:35:39 PM
Quote
It is at best unproven that the Trump campaign can command the sort of infrastructure they would really need to pull this off."

I think this kind of thing just backs up the assertions of those who always insisted that Trump, and the Trump Administration, was always too incompetent to ever be a real threat to the Republic.  There has been a bunch of fear mongering over the last four years about just how dangerous he was.  He's a clown, and when one of your top advisor is Rudi Guiliani (the wacked out clown 2010s version, not the 1990s/2000s version) what more you expect? It was a fluke, an act of God, that the guy was ever elected in the first place.  Not 4th grade communication skills. 

Really, Oprah could probably do a better job at threatening democracy if she wanted.  The biggest danger was always that his stupidity and vanity made him vulnerable to other idiots and grifters and those trying to manipulate him.  I know lots of you thought W was a moron, but can we at least all agree now that he was miles ahead in intellect and character than Trump? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 06, 2020, 10:06:13 PM
3,300 of Georgia's 14,200 provisional ballots have now been counted, and they are breaking marginally towards Biden (54%/46%).

Trump would need to make up 4,400 votes over the next 11,000 - basically, he has to amass more than 7,700 out of the remaining ballots, or about 70% of the remainder, significantly reversing the trend so far.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 06, 2020, 10:11:12 PM
That's how I felt during the Gore "recount" in Florida.  It's absurd to demand of the opposition what we wouldn't demand from our own team.

The thing in Florida was effectively caused by the butterfly ballots taking away votes by accident from the Democratic party. So the will of the voters was violated and this violation gave Bush the win when Gore should have been president... but AFAIK it was done by accident, not deliberate fraud.

This in turn motivated Democrats to try to fix the false election outcome, by selective recounts. But that was from the beginning bull*censored*. The problem was in the ballots, not in the counting thereof.

Frankly the whole Florida election should have been repeated with properly made ballots, but I don't know if your constitution permits it or what not.

In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

Your cult of personality is showing. In the Democrat party, there are perhaps the centrists and the leftists.... in the Republican party there *used* to be conservatives, libertartians, hawks, whatever -- but now the only division that matters is people who like Trump and people who don't like Trump.

You are speaking of Trump and his opponents like a Stalinist would speak of Stalin and Stalin's opponents.

I wonder what will happen with you lot when Trump dies.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:05:56 PM
In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

Your cult of personality is showing. In the Democrat party, there are perhaps the centrists and the leftists.... in the Republican party there *used* to be conservatives, libertartians, hawks, whatever -- but now the only division that matters is people who like Trump and people who don't like Trump.

I think the Democrats need to tread very carefully over the next 2 to 4 years or they might be in for a very nasty shock:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/04/politics/exit-polls-2020-update/index.html

Quote
The majority of Trump and Biden supporters said they cast ballots more in support of their candidate than against his opponent, though Trump's base was even more loyal to him. More than 4 in 5 people said they voted for the President, while just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same.

On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."

Now go back and look at that historic voter turnout that happened this year. You can be certain that if someone voted Trump, they're against what the Democrats want to do. Now remember that nearly a third of the people who turned out to vote for Bidenagainst Trump probably are lukewarm at best in regards to the Democratic 2020 platform.

If the Republicans can bring forward a "Trump 2.0" with the policies, but without the runaway mouth, of Donald Trump for the 2024 Election, the Democrats are potentially toast. If the Democrats push forward with their 2020 platform too aggressively, they're also likely to get roasted in the 2022 midterms.

The Democrats might want to think that the Republicans are the ones in trouble, but Trump has shown them a path forward, they just have to follow it. If the Republicans do that, the Democrats are going to be in for a world of hurt.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 06, 2020, 11:23:33 PM
On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."

Somewhat obvious correction that was missed on my earlier review:

On the air early Tuesday evening they straight up broke down the other side of "just under two-thirds of Biden's voters said the same"(voted for him) as "voted against the other candidate."
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 06, 2020, 11:58:19 PM
If the Republicans can bring forward a "Trump 2.0" with the policies, but without the runaway mouth, of Donald Trump for the 2024 Election, the Democrats are potentially toast. If the Democrats push forward with their 2020 platform too aggressively, they're also likely to get roasted in the 2022 midterms.

I think the runaway mouth is what won Trump most of his support. Demagogues gotta demagogue.

Moreover, if still alive Trump is going to run again on 2024. Any Republican that dares run against him on the Republican primaries will be deemed an enemy of the people by Trump's supporters.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2020, 06:19:29 AM
I heard NPR bring up Florida and they basically lied about what happened saying that the Supreme Court with Bush people on it stepped in and stopped the recount. The problem was that Al Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount but only a recount in his cherry picked districts where any recount would be very likely to favor his chances. In other words, states must have uniformity of their process.

And that may be a problem in Pennsylvania. States can determine their own processes within reason but they must be uniform across the state. They aren't allowed to have some districts doing things one way and other districts doing things with their own style and flair. There doesn't have to be voter fraud for the courts to step in and say you can't do things willy-nilly all over the place across the state, accepting ballots in one area that are not accepted in another and vice versa. The watchword is consistency.

But people still saying that the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush because they didn't let Gore get a recount only in heavily Democrat areas still chaps me rather raw, especially when it's our so called media and our tax-payer funded media at that. And that's how it is too, story after story, spin and spin and spin with half truths tenderly hand crafted only to deceive.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 07, 2020, 06:30:06 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/opinions/supreme-court-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballots-douglas/index.html

"Pennsylvania's constitution includes a "free and equal" clause, and the state supreme court has invoked that provision to provide more protection to the right to vote than federal courts do under the US Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had issued a ruling that extended the absentee ballot receipt deadline to November 6, three days after Election Day, so long as the ballots were postmarked by November 3 or, for ballots without a postmark, there was no evidence that they were mailed after Election Day."

How are there ballots without a postmark?

So if they don't have a postmark how would you have evidence that there were mailed after election day? The postmark is the evidence of when they were mailed. How is that not totally fishy?

And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court legislated from the bench in extending the voting deadline too. I believe they said because of Covid. There have been pandemics before. The legislature if it was their intention could have included contingencies and allowances in the law but apparently they did not. That's definitely lawsuit worthy.

Democrats insist we need to have faith in our elections, well at least when they win or think they'll win, but there's a lot of shady stuff going on. That's not conspiracy either. Accepting ballots without postmarks? That's fact.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 07, 2020, 07:57:14 AM
With 8,400 of the 14,200 provisional ballots counted in Georgia, Biden's lead is now about 7,200.  Even if Trump gets 100% of the remaining uncounted ballots, it won't be enough.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 07, 2020, 08:32:54 AM
How are there ballots without a postmark?

So if they don't have a postmark how would you have evidence that there were mailed after election day? The postmark is the evidence of when they were mailed. How is that not totally fishy?

Well, I googled it:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-postmark-challenge

In Pennsylvania, postage is prepaid on ballot envelopes to be returned by mail. Typically these prepaid envelopes are not automatically postmarked.

In a statement to Fox News, a spokesperson for the Postal Service said that the agency will “try to ensure” that every ballot mailed by voters receives a postmark, whether it is prepaid or mailed with a stamp by voters.

“Although we instruct our employees throughout the country to adhere to our ballot postmarking policy, such practice does deviate from normal procedures, since the primary purpose of cancellation is to ensure that postage cannot be reused, and some categories of postage are pre-canceled before they enter the mailstream,” the spokesperson said. “As a result, we acknowledge that circumstances can arise that prevent ballots from receiving a legible postmark.”


And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court legislated from the bench in extending the voting deadline too. I believe they said because of Covid. There have been pandemics before. The legislature if it was their intention could have included contingencies and allowances in the law but apparently they did not. That's definitely lawsuit worthy.

Seems like a state issue to me, if it's about state laws vs the state constitution, and hasn't the state Supreme Court already decided on this? I don't see much room for Trump's campaign here.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 07, 2020, 09:21:56 AM
Seems like a state issue to me, if it's about state laws vs the state constitution, and hasn't the state Supreme Court already decided on this? I don't see much room for Trump's campaign here.
Honestly, what is the real concern, here?  Is the intent to adhere to define specific rules, or is it to identify the will of the voters?

I'm not talking about this specific election now, but rather more generally.  If I was the boss of everything, it would simply not matter when a ballot was cast, be it in person or by mail, nor when it was received - as long as it was received in time to be counted.  There is nothing particularly special about election "day" - that is just when vast numbers of people get organized to make the mechanisms of in-person voting available. The current set up was put in place what, hundreds of years ago to allow time between that day and certification - time enough to count, recount and validate.  If a state has the ability, it could accept votes cast after that date without problem.  Of course there needs to be 'a' cutoff for casting votes, but that is a function of the certification date and the time required to process all votes.

The challenge with the hard and fast rules about receiving votes by an arbitrary date is that voters can be disenfranchised due to the delivery methods.  Of course, that is always going to happen (something lost in the mail for 20 years is simply lost) but votes received while counting is still occurring?  Disregarding those is simply arbitrary but worse, such restrictions lend themselves to abuse.

As for security - measures are in place to protect election security, and changes can be made as methodologies and technologies change.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 07, 2020, 10:37:31 AM
There is nothing particularly special about election "day"

There kinda is.  It's constitutionally mandated in Article Two. 

Quote
If a state has the ability, it could accept votes cast after that date without problem.  Of course there needs to be 'a' cutoff for casting votes, but that is a function of the certification date and the time required to process all votes.

Sure.  A state could accept votes cast after that date.  But like you say, there must be a cutoff date.  That cutoff date has already been set in the Constitution.  We have a cutoff date.  You can say that the cutoff date should be dependent on the certification date, but what is the difference if you simply set an initial cutoff date? 

I understand that in the spirit of democracy that some states makes allowances.  They have that right in some areas.  I don't really have a problem with it except that it sets a precedent that we're constantly moving a deadline because some people can't seem to make it in time. 

I have been and will continue to be of the mind that government should not coddle citizens.  They should be treated as adults.  There is a cutoff date.  It's no different than getting to a plane on time.  There is, for the majority of voters, plenty of time to get your vote in, whether it is by mail or at the polls.  There has been plenty of bending backwards already to make sure that votes are counted.  Keeping polls open late, etc.  That's good and there is room for allowances.

But the key here for me is that the government is not responsible for making sure that you exercise your rights.  It's a right, not something the government should hand you on a silver platter.  You have the right to vote.  It's not the government's job to drive you to the polls, make sure you understand the ballot, give you a free ID card, and extend things out if you get caught in traffic, oversleep, are stuck in a hospital, etc.  If you want to vote, you can, and the government MUST NOT IMPEDE YOU.  But the government shouldn't have to go out of it's way to oblige a voter either.  There is a middle ground.  It's fuzzy and there is room, but the basic philosophy should be that it is the voter's responsibility.

This is just the same as any other right.  You have the right to bear arms, but the government shouldn't have to buy you a gun or pay to teach you how to use it or give out free hunting licenses or concealed carry permits, etc.  You have the right to free speech.  Doesn't mean the government is obliged to give you a platform or make sure that you get equal time or whatever.  That' s what I believe. 

I know this is at odds with the basic liberal idea that every vote is precious and must count, particularly in the case of voter ID, etc.  But that's my philosophy of personal responsibility.  That's the difference between my conservative outlook and a liberal outlook. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 07, 2020, 10:55:52 AM
No, it's not.  The date on which electoral college electors vote is simply mandated to be the same day throughout the country.  Congress has, in conjunction with its powers, mandated a specific "election day".  The states' legislatures have enacted laws specifying that they will run elections and respect the will of the electorate when choosing electors, but there is literally nothing in the federal constitution about the president being chosen by popular vote within states, so it is hardly possible that the federal constitution would mandate a specific date for those elections.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 07, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
Also... that is not a "conservative" vs a "liberal" concept. 

As an aside, once you allow mail-in voting, or any non-in-person voting, the delivery of the vote is no longer in the control of the voter.

If the post office delays one person's ballot by 3 days (or 10 day, or two weeks) more than another voter's ballot, that has nothing to do with irresponsibility.  That's a red herring and misplaced self-virtue talking, generally.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 07, 2020, 11:48:26 AM
Speaking of results, the election has been called for Biden.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 07, 2020, 01:05:45 PM
Nevada has been called as well.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 02:35:01 PM
Donald,

“Also... that is not a ‘conservative’ vs a ‘liberal’ concept.“

Perhaps this is just a huge misunderstanding, but you, Y-22, NH, LR, and Drake are all “liberal”, correct? Is it a coincidence that none of the conservatives on this board agree with federally sponsored voter hand-holding measures, ie. ; waiver of election cycle registration, presentation of identification, and default in-person ballot delivery, yet all of you do?

Are you applying a rhetorical distinction between a general “concept“, and the very specific application of ”mail-in-voting“ which;  renders “... the delivery of the vote... no longer in the control of the voter.“, yet makes the government responsible for that vote being registered under virtually all conceivable mishaps?

If so, would you be in favor of a holding a new election in which implementation of personal voter responsibility could lend legitimacy to the results?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 07, 2020, 02:53:19 PM
Donald,

“Also... that is not a ‘conservative’ vs a ‘liberal’ concept.“

Perhaps this is just a huge misunderstanding, but you, Y-22, NH, LR, and Drake are all “liberal”, correct? Is it a coincidence that none of the conservatives on this board agree with federally sponsored voter hand-holding measures, ie. ; waiver of election cycle registration, presentation of identification, and default in-person ballot delivery, yet all of you do?

Are you applying a rhetorical distinction between a general “concept“, and the very specific application of ”mail-in-voting“ which;  renders “... the delivery of the vote... no longer in the control of the voter.“, yet makes the government responsible for that vote being registered under virtually all conceivable mishaps?

If so, would you be in favor of a holding a new election in which implementation of personal voter responsibility could lend legitimacy to the results?

I can be called liberal, and almost certainly by your standards. With respect to voting, I'm fine with reforms. They should make voting easy and secure, not one at the expense of the other. I think signature match is sufficient. You don't? Okay. Make a proposal that isn't just everybody should plow into overcrowded polling stations. Tell me you want to expand polling stations. Tell me you support a secure, remote method to register and verify identity. I'll get on board. You want to scrub voter rolls? Don't just dump people. Contact them. Verify that we're not scrubbing valid voters because they happen to have the same name as somebody else. Use tax data to test the rolls, everybody submits a return every single year with their address, SSN, and can be cross checked. Require a universal, national voting ID. Require a blockchain unassailable electronic submission. Suggest a national holiday for voting, or just move it to veterans day and roll it together. Require businesses to close that day.

But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day. Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport. Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem, if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.

You call it "hand holding". I call it inclusion.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 03:59:00 PM
Drake,

“I can be called liberal, and almost certainly by your standards. With respect to voting, I'm fine with reforms. They should make voting easy and secure, not one at the expense of the other.“

Agreed.

“I think signature match is sufficient. You don't? Okay.”

Would “matching” a fraudulent signature, with another fraudulent signature meet your standard of “security“?

“Make a proposal that isn't just everybody should plow into overcrowded polling stations.”

At 5:00 P.M., November 3rd, my polling station looked no more crowded than a train terminal, and there was only one polling place in all of Spanish Fork. As I checked designated locations in other cities going north and south from me, there was, likewise, only one polling station per city. I cannot recall being in an overly crowded poll even when I lived in California.

“Tell me you want to expand polling stations.”

If your’s was too crowded, approach the State about setting up another. I certainly will not object. The issue returns to personal responsibility.

“Tell me you support a secure, remote method to register and verify identity.”

It has always existed. Commonly we call it an “absentee ballot“. My only objection to making this a default choice is that the purpose behind a secret ballot is circumvented.

“I'll get on board. You want to scrub voter rolls? Don't just dump people. Contact them.”

This is where the liberal mindset is taking over. It is not the job of government to tell individuals that an election is taking place, and they need to register. If a voter is that detached from the world around them, it is probably a good bet that they are not qualified to register an informed choice. Voting in a democracy is all about cultivating an educated electorate.

“Verify that we're not scrubbing valid voters because they happen to have the same name as somebody else.”

That would be addressed by taking the individual initiative to register. Again, you are treating people like juveniles.

“Use tax data to test the rolls, everybody submits a return every single year with their address, SSN, and can be cross checked.”

I seriously doubt that the demographic that you are concerned about can be relied upon to file yearly tax returns, but if they did not, it would still not disqualify their vote if they are serious about it.

“Require a universal, national voting ID.”

That is called a valid Social Security card.

“Require a blockchain unassailable electronic submission.“

Why?

“Suggest a national holiday for voting, or just move it to veterans day and roll it together. Require businesses to close that day.“

There you go with the hand-holding again. Adults can find time between work hours, and/or school, to vote. I have thirteen-hour days, and manage. We don’t need one more stupid federal holiday to exercise our civic responsibility.

“But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day.“

Or a full time job, and school. I will repeat; voting is an adult activity.

“Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport.”

I seriously doubt that many rural residents are this helpless, but for those who are the absentee ballot is a sufficient remedy.

“Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem... “

I have never seen such a thing, and I do not believe that you have either.

“... if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.“

You make an interesting point; should the commitment to vote equal the motivation to possess the latest iPhone. Even juveniles seem to rise to the occasion.

“You call it ‘hand holding’. I call it inclusion.“

The difference is that I am right. Further, what makes a vote precious is its legitimacy. Why would you advocate compromising my vote?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 07, 2020, 04:19:33 PM
But all I ever hear from conservative circles is, everyone should have an ID anyway. Everyone should just show up on election day, never mind that they might be working two jobs that day. Just go to your polling location, even if you live in a rural area with no public transport. Polling lines that take eight hours to get through are no problem, if you really want to vote you should be willing to stand in inclement weather longer than it takes to get the latest iphone.

Identification should be required to register. Identification methods should be used to release an absentee(/mail in ballot) or for an in person vote.

I could care less about someone voting absentee(done that while Active Duty), or voting early(done that too), or voting in person on election day(also have done that).

My issues on voting is the seeming lack of interest in securing the vote(lack of strong identification for registration), or even trying to properly verify the person is who they say they are otherwise(sending ballots out without a request, or not requiring any form of ID for in person voting if registered).

I'm perfectly fine with expanded early voting options. I'm even fine with the mail in ballot up to a point, but there are things which need to be refined further. As to the long polling lines? I've never had the occasion to live in such a precinct so it is outside my experience, but I also realize that certain cities probably have high rise apartment buildings with more eligible voters living there than live in my entire precinct. I don't live in that situation, so it isn't really my place to tell them how to handle that. But I do think offering all three options of Early in-person voting, mail-in(or drop-box) voting, and the traditional in-person vote on election day is a good mix.

How the highly urbanized areas address the issue of staffing and siting of poling locations for areas with large populations is likely to largely be a manpower issue(too many people, not enough poll workers), and that is a domain that has avenues for potential correction, they just have to work out how best to handle that. Clearly many rural areas seem to be able to produce 4 or 5 poll workers for every 1,500-ish registered voters(I just looked at the precinct level results for my county to get the registered voter count for my polling location, which handles two precincts). So why other locations seem incapable of the same is likely to be a good starting point.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 07, 2020, 04:37:05 PM
I can get something notarized online. I send a picture of my ID, and a picture of myself. Why can't people register that way?

Noel, I'm glad you enjoy your privilege of working jobs where you can take off for an hour or more in the middle of the workday, and drive the automobile you can afford, to a rural polling place. Try that when you have an hour and a half commute via train and bus into San Francisco from Gilroy, which isn't in the same county.

Early voting does solve a lot of the problem, and I'm a strong advocate for it. I'm okay with not sending pre-emptive ballots, if the process to get an absentee ballot is unrestricted, simple, and honest.

I'm okay with eliminating ballot collection, sometimes called harvesting, if reasonably equivalent alternatives exist.

To a certain extent, I think I'd support necessary re-registration for everyone over selective silent removal.

See how I'm willing to make concessions, but you aren't Noel? See how you say incorrect things, like claiming a social security card is ID, when it doesn't satisfy any requirement for voting?

I'm not treating voters like juveniles, I'm treating them like citizens and customers. The state exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. I'm tempted to ask if you would have supported poll taxes and literacy tests, because after all adults can pay a nominal fee and pass a simple test?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 05:46:31 PM
Drake,

“I can get something notarized online. I send a picture of my ID, and a picture of myself. Why can't people register that way?“

I never have, and venture to guess that you are more sophisticated than the vast majority of people who you are concerned about. To register, and make an absentee ballot request, that sounds like a perfectly acceptable option to me... just not widely accessible. Remember, you are talking about individuals who may not even know that there is an election which they need to register for.

“Noel, I'm glad you enjoy your privilege of working jobs where you can take off for an hour or more in the middle of the workday, and drive the automobile you can afford, to a rural polling place.“

Actually, I did not take time off from work. I voted between work, and school. Yes, I have vehicles, but public transit (Bus, and Train) is available for those who do not.

“Try that when you have an hour and a half commute via train and bus into San Francisco from Gilroy, which isn't in the same county.“

Your polling place is located one and one-half hours from your residence? California was not that disorganized when I was there. Gavin Newsom must be dramatically more incompetent than Jerry Brown. I would raise hell with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia.

“Early voting does solve a lot of the problem, and I'm a strong advocate for it. I'm okay with not sending pre-emptive ballots, if the process to get an absentee ballot is unrestricted, simple, and honest.”

Early voting creates a set of problems of its own. Jimmy Carter destroyed the campaigns of down-ballot Democratic candidates with his early concession to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

“I'm okay with eliminating ballot collection, sometimes called harvesting, if reasonably equivalent alternatives exist.“

What would a “reasonable equivalent” to ballot harvesting look like?

“To a certain extent, I think I'd support necessary re-registration for everyone over selective silent removal.”

On that we are apparently in agreement.

“See how I'm willing to make concessions, but you aren't Noel? See how you say incorrect things, like claiming a social security card is ID, when it doesn't satisfy any requirement for voting?”

It satisfies federal identification requirements for employment, but you are correct that it should have all of the validation safeguards of a State driver’s license. You can consider that a concession if you like. Who could disagree with reliable Federal voter identification?

“I'm not treating voters like juveniles, I'm treating them like citizens and customers.”

No, voters are not customers, they are citizen-owners. They need to assert their superior status over the State. Don’t encourage governmental agencies to believe otherwise.

“The state exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around.“

The State exists at the pleasure of the people, and we dictate what we need through the franchise. It is government’s obligation to comply with our will, not the other way around.

“I'm tempted to ask if you would have supported poll taxes and literacy tests, because after all adults can pay a nominal fee and pass a simple test?“

I would not have supported a “poll” tax under any circumstances. It reverses the relative standing of government, and the people. If there was a way to constitutionally exclude citizens suffering from mental incompetency, I would be sympathetic to the proposition for the same reason that I agree with minors being barred from the franchise. Unfortunately I can not see a way of legally making that determination. Again, democracy requires an educated electorate.

Hopefully these people self-disenfranchise, and are not made targets of ballot harvesting, although I am certain that it has been tried... probably successfully.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 07, 2020, 06:08:17 PM
I know, Canada is a socialist backwater, but we don't have this incessant drama over litigating federal elections in ways similar to what the USA puts itself through every 4 years.

We also have equivalent levels of voter fraud as does the USA, that is to say, negligible.

And as for identification and voter registration?  We allow onsite registration using either accepted IDs OR via taking an oath.  We accept that there is no universally available ID available in the country (and this in a country with universal health care where IDs are provided as part of the service). We allow online registration.  We allow people to register while returning tax forms.  It is illegal to vote in a federal election if you are not a citizen, and that is generally sufficient to dissuade non-citizens from voting.  Mistakes do get made, no question. Since we do not disenfranchise adult citizens in other ways (we see you, prison-industrial complex) it really isn't that hard.

The dead also rarely vote - maybe because we have government pensions, and the controls on reporting deaths are far stricter in order to avoid continuing to pay dead people subsistence wages when they no longer should be collecting them.  Purging voter roles the way some US states do is just not a thing.

Do some non-citizens vote?  Yes, every election a few people are caught voting, mostly inadvertently, but guess what - it doesn't really matter.  The level of such votes is negligible.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 06:46:21 PM
Donald,

“I know, Canada is a socialist backwater, but we don't have this incessant drama over litigating federal elections in ways similar to what the USA puts itself through every 4 years.“

Yes, Canada is a socialist backwater, which is why most Americans could not even name the Canadian Prime Minister, and you are on this site following the American presidential election as if you were citizen.

“We also have equivalent levels of voter fraud as does the USA, that is to say, negligible.“

This is epistemological tautology.

“And as for identification and voter registration?  We allow onsite registration using either accepted IDs OR via taking an oath.”

It is a good thing that Americans do not consider Canada a standard worth emulating. Don’t get me wrong, I like Canada. You just are not important enough to be relevant to the American political process.

“We accept that there is no universally available ID available in the country (and this in a country with universal health care where IDs are provided as part of the service).”

Good for Canada!

“We allow online registration.  We allow people to register while returning tax forms. It is illegal to vote in a federal election if you are not a citizen, and that is generally sufficient to dissuade non-citizens from voting.”

The United States is manifestly more important in the international scheme of things, and our standards need to be higher, of necessity.

“Mistakes do get made, no question. Since we do not disenfranchise adult citizens in other ways (we see you, prison-industrial complex) it really isn't that hard.“

It is not “mistakes“ that concern me.

“The dead also rarely vote - maybe because we have government pensions, and the controls on reporting deaths are far stricter in order to avoid continuing to pay dead people subsistence wages when they no longer should be collecting them.  Purging voter roles the way some US states do is just not a thing.“

The dead should never vote, and I am stunned that Canada ever has that problem. Election cycle voter-role purging is the only mechanism that non-socialist America has to avoid unsolicited ballots, and ballot requests.

“Do some non-citizens vote?  Yes, every election a few people are caught voting, mostly inadvertently, but guess what - it doesn't really matter.  The level of such votes is negligible.”

This sort of tampering with election integrity has an established history for creation of Banana Republic governments. Grant naively, in my opinion, believes that corruption on this order is inconceivable. South America’s struggle with post-colonial totalitarianism is textbook evidence that widespread election fraud is the rule, not the exception, where voter fraud investigation is not honored, immediate, thorough, and dispositive.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 07, 2020, 06:54:23 PM

Yes, Canada is a socialist backwater, which is why most Americans could not even name the Canadian Prime Minister,

 ::)

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 07, 2020, 09:58:03 PM
Drake,

“I can get something notarized online. I send a picture of my ID, and a picture of myself. Why can't people register that way?“

I never have, and venture to guess that you are more sophisticated than the vast majority of people who you are concerned about. To register, and make an absentee ballot request, that sounds like a perfectly acceptable option to me... just not widely accessible. Remember, you are talking about individuals who may not even know that there is an election which they need to register for.


A very large number of people have access to cell phones. Make a simple registration app available and Voila. Those who can't do for themselves can easily be helped by community activists who regularly help people register.

Quote
“Noel, I'm glad you enjoy your privilege of working jobs where you can take off for an hour or more in the middle of the workday, and drive the automobile you can afford, to a rural polling place.“

Actually, I did not take time off from work. I voted between work, and school. Yes, I have vehicles, but public transit (Bus, and Train) is available for those who do not.

“Try that when you have an hour and a half commute via train and bus into San Francisco from Gilroy, which isn't in the same county.“

Your polling place is located one and one-half hours from your residence? California was not that disorganized when I was there. Gavin Newsom must be dramatically more incompetent than Jerry Brown. I would raise hell with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia.

You've missed several points. First, I'm not sure why you assume that every situation I describe is about me personally. I don't live in California, I don't have problems with transportation. To help you reread what I wrote, I'm describing a person who lives in Gilroy, meaning they have to vote in Santa Clara county. Their polling place could be a hundred yards from their front door, and it wouldn't make any difference if they work in San Francisco.

Quote
“I'm okay with eliminating ballot collection, sometimes called harvesting, if reasonably equivalent alternatives exist.“

What would a “reasonable equivalent” to ballot harvesting look like?

Something that allows an equal amount of convenience. Mostly this isn't about lazy people before you start crowing about adults. Primarily this is designed to assist the elderly, frail, or disabled community. So you might be somebody who works with blind people, who would have a hard time just going to a polling place. I'm not exactly sure what could fill that gap, apart from voting by mail which you loathe.

Quote
It satisfies federal identification requirements for employment, but you are correct that it should have all of the validation safeguards of a State driver’s license. You can consider that a concession if you like. Who could disagree with reliable Federal voter identification?

It doesn't even satisfy employment identification on its own. The I-9 requires a picture ID to go with it. Groups as varied as the ACLU and the Cato Institute oppose the creation of such a thing out of fears that the government will use them to create a Chinese like surveillance system of citizens. They will (and do) argue that attempts to create such an ID for employment to crack down on illegal immigration would eventually migrate to full blown tracking and destruction of privacy. The same objections would happen for a national voter ID.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 10:40:25 PM
Drake,

“Something that allows an equal amount of convenience. Mostly this isn't about lazy people before you start crowing about adults. Primarily this is designed to assist the elderly, frail, or disabled community. So you might be somebody who works with blind people, who would have a hard time just going to a polling place. I'm not exactly sure what could fill that gap, apart from voting by mail which you loathe.“

More specifically; I “loathe” unsolicited mail-in ballots, a point which seems to be alluding you. Absentee ballots, as a secondary option are a reasonable alternative. That method is not ideal as it suffers from a breach of secrecy/undue influence, but still passes muster with me.

“You've missed several points. First, I'm not sure why you assume that every situation I describe is about me personally. I don't live in California, I don't have problems with transportation. To help you reread what I wrote, I'm describing a person who lives in Gilroy, meaning they have to vote in Santa Clara county. Their polling place could be a hundred yards from their front door, and it wouldn't make any difference if they work in San Francisco.”

I have “missed” nothing material. Work commutes are long in the Bay Area. Take the day off if the logistics of getting to your polling place are unmanageable, or apply for an absentee ballot.

“It doesn't even satisfy employment identification on its own. The I-9 requires a picture ID to go with it. Groups as varied as the ACLU and the Cato Institute oppose the creation of such a thing out of fears that the government will use them to create a Chinese like surveillance system of citizens.”

The CCP surveillance system involves a lot more than issuance of a photo Social Security card, and legal use restrictions could be placed upon a Social Security photo ID just as restrictions were placed upon merchants demanding secondary credit card identification when writing a check (how time flies). As a side benefit, such a card would stop employment of illegal aliens cold. That is a good thing.

If your concern is Micro-Federal surveillance, that genie is already out of the bottle with the NSA’s PRISM data capture program. Remaining off the grid pretty much necessitates disabling GPS, audio, and camera functions on your cell phone.

“They will (and do) argue that attempts to create such an ID for employment to crack down on illegal immigration would eventually migrate to full blown tracking and destruction of privacy. The same objections would happen for a national voter ID.”[/i]

Like I said, we are already there, and a card’s legal use is much easier to regulate.

This is what happens when confidence in voting protocol is undermined. :

Where things stand with Trump’s litigation :

Pennsylvania

1. To compel Philadelphia election officials to stop counting ballots.
A federal judge dismissed the request.

2. To compel state election officials to allow Trump campaign officials closer observation of the counting process.

A state judge ruled in the campaign’s favor, allowing campaign officials to observe the Philadelphia process from a six foot distance. Philadelphia election officials appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, and the outcome of that appeal is pending.

3. To compel Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and all 67 counties to impose an earlier date for voters to show proof of identification if it was not on their initial ballots.

Litigation is ongoing.

The presiding judge ordered all counties to segregate ballots if the voters do not provide supplemental identification by Nov. 9. The ballots with supplemental identification provided after Nov. 9 cannot be counted until approved by the court.

4. To compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots

The campaign and Republican National Committee filed suit to halt the process of counting mail-in ballots in Montgomery County, one of the counties in suburban Philadelphia, alleging that the board of elections was counting 600 ballots that had not been placed in secrecy envelopes and was therefore not complying with requirements.

The litigation is ongoing.

5. To intervene in an already existing dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether ballots the state received after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count.

The litigation is ongoing.

Nevada

1. To impose an injunction on the automated signature-verification machines used in Clark County as ballots continue to be counted.

Michigan

1. To halt the counting of absentee ballots, on the grounds that campaign officials had not been given access to observe the process as required by state law.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens denied the campaign’s request on Nov. 6.

2. To halt the certification of election results in Detroit, Michigan’s largest city and a Democratic stronghold.

Georgia

Probable request for statewide recount.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 10:53:00 PM
Grant,

“Yes, Canada is a socialist backwater, which is why most Americans could not even name the Canadian Prime Minister,

 ::)“


What part of my statement do you have an issue with?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 07, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-Americans-can-name-the-Prime-Minister-of-Canada/answer/Valerie-Hulley?ch=10&share=00bcf434&srid=unMGx
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 12:00:59 AM
It says more about Americans than it does about Canada. Americans are global morons when it comes to locating other countries on a map, let alone their leaders. None of which has anything to do with the relative merits of a country's self governance and methods for voting. You might be shocked to learn that people in other countries care about their leaders beyond their impact on geopolitics and foreign policy. They might care more about affordable health care and other social policy. I guarantee the Quebecois care. And so you don't have to look it up, Quebec is a province of that *censored*hole country to our north. Also, Canadian provinces are like US states.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 12:04:59 AM
To the specific question of being a "backwater", Canada is a member of the G7 - generally considered a pretty elite club. That backwater also has many global initiatives, and is more involved than the US in many ways. You can learn about it here.

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/index.aspx?lang=eng
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 08, 2020, 12:54:40 AM

“Make a proposal that isn't just everybody should plow into overcrowded polling stations.”

At 5:00 P.M., November 3rd, my polling station looked no more crowded than a train terminal, and there was only one polling place in all of Spanish Fork. As I checked designated locations in other cities going north and south from me, there was, likewise, only one polling station per city. I cannot recall being in an overly crowded poll even when I lived in California.


It might be helpful to identify that you live in a State with default universal mail in voting, with a ballot mailed to every registered voter.  Polling stations are only necessary and available for those people who didn't want to drop off or mail their ballot, or didn't go to vote in person for the 30 days before the election.  The experience of one voter in the metropolis of Spanish Fork [Utah] might not be universally applicable to the question of overcrowded polling stations.   I suspect most observers have seen multiple examples of U.S. voters stretched out for blocks waiting to vote in the last  4 weeks.  This might be an actual problem which top minds of the world's greatest democracy might want to address.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 01:01:25 AM
Drake,

I should not have taken Donald’s bait.

“To the specific question of being a ‘backwater’, Canada is a member of the G7-7.”

Yes, the G-7 controls roughly 60% of the world’s wealth, and Canada made the membership cut with an economy one-tenth that of the U.S.. That international status is commendable, and Canada has always been a loyal, if reluctant, ally. That said; it has problems that friends should be able to criticize without recrimination. I do not need lectures from a Canadian informed by CNN on why complacency with U.S. electoral defects ought to be overlooked because Canada does even dumber stuff. Don’t get me started on the Trudeau revolution.

KIDV,

“It might be helpful to identify that you live in a State with default universal mail in voting, with a ballot mailed to every registered voter.“

Why do you think that would be “helpful”, except to possibly lodge my disgust that an unsolicited ballot, in my name, entered the ether-would in spite of my timely reregistration?

“Polling stations are only necessary and available for those people who didn't want to drop off or mail their ballot, or didn't go to vote in person for the 30 days before the election.  The experience of one voter in the metropolis of Spanish Fork [Utah] might not be universally applicable to the question of overcrowded polling stations.“

You did notice that I am a native Californian, correct?

“I suspect most observers have seen multiple examples of U.S. voters stretched out for blocks waiting to vote in the last  4 weeks.  This might be an actual problem which top minds of the world's greatest democracy might want to address.“

I have not, and if you personal experience differs, say so.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 01:31:45 AM
Again with the "personal experience" line? Most of us don't have to have a personal experience to know things are happening. I know your observation of the world stops at the end of your nose, but most of us can have empathy for people who are not us.

Quote
In Tarrant County, which includes Fort Worth, 22,803 votes had been cast as of 2:30 p.m. ET, according to the county officials. Five locations showed wait times of more than an hour on Tuesday afternoon.

educate yourself (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/politics/voting-lines-election-coronavirus/index.html)

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 01:47:12 AM
Drake,

“Again with the ‘personal experience’ line? Most of us don't have to have a personal experience to know things are happening. I know your observation of the world stops at the end of your nose, but most of us can have empathy for people who are not us.”

“Things are happening”, now that is insightful. I have waited “more than an hour“ to get on “Pirates of the Caribbean”, and “the Haunted Mansion“, without developing a hunger for “empathy“. Again, if in-person voting is too rigorous a sacrifice for you, request an absentee ballot. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 01:49:07 AM
It might be helpful to identify that you live in a State with default universal mail in voting, with a ballot mailed to every registered voter.  Polling stations are only necessary and available for those people who didn't want to drop off or mail their ballot, or didn't go to vote in person for the 30 days before the election.  The experience of one voter in the metropolis of Spanish Fork [Utah] might not be universally applicable to the question of overcrowded polling stations.   I suspect most observers have seen multiple examples of U.S. voters stretched out for blocks waiting to vote in the last  4 weeks.  This might be an actual problem which top minds of the world's greatest democracy might want to address.

I don't live in such a state. I early voted, and in my county we evidently more than doubled the number of early/mail-in voting compared the elections past. (going from about 8,600 early/mail in vote to 21,000) When I want into the office to vote about 4:30 in the afternoon just before the closed for that day, I had 2 people ahead of me in the line.

In 2016 the early voting line had 3 or 4 people in line ahead of me as I recall, so that does suggest most of the extra 13,000-ish voters did mail-in. In any case, no lines to really speak of. The longest line I've ever experienced when trying to vote in person involved a whole 6 people, and that was only because they were walking into the building as I pulled into the parking area.

Now my parents have seen lines that ran down the hall and even out the building's entry door on one occasion at their polling location, but they don't remember when that was(it certainly would predate early voting being an option though). Even that line was handled in under an hour to their memory.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 01:52:32 AM
“Things are happening”, now that is insightful. I have waited “more than an hour“ to get on “Pirates of the Caribbean”, and “the Haunted Mansion“, without developing a hunger for “empathy“. Again, if in-person voting is too rigorous a sacrifice for you, request an absentee ballot.

Depending on the state, getting a mail in ballot can require certain pre-conditions to be met which he wouldn't qualify for. I know my 2004 mail-in ballot required me to certify that I going to be outside of the area on election day and unable to physically vote in person. They've since changed the laws on that prior to Covid19, but other states still retained the more restrictive criteria until this year's events.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 08, 2020, 01:55:12 AM
Grant,

“Yes, Canada is a socialist backwater, which is why most Americans could not even name the Canadian Prime Minister,

 ::)“


What part of my statement do you have an issue with?

Some might view insulting someone's residence as an apparent argument to disregard their opinion as a personal attack.  But I guess it's true that Canada is socialist and also that it's a backwater, Noel C. implies, so it's not really an insult?

It appears that Noel C. is serious that we should disregard any Canadian's opinion on valid or reasonable election procedures. 

I do not agree that we should disregard the opinions of people who live in backwaters on reasonable election procedures.  I also do not agree that we should disregard the opinions of people who happen to live in places with universal mail-in voting with signature verification as to whether that is a worthwhile voting option.

----------------

odds and ends:

"There was a six-hour wait for the last person in line to vote just before 10 a.m. Saturday at County Square in Greenville. The line stretched twice the length of the buildings at 301 University Ridge before snaking through a parking lot on the eastern side of the complex."
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/30/election-notes-tim-scott-help-trump-absentee-voting-record-more/6077411002/ (https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/30/election-notes-tim-scott-help-trump-absentee-voting-record-more/6077411002/) [South Carolina]

"By that time the polls had long been officially closed and the state’s Democratic primary had already been called for Joe Biden. Rogers had waited six hours and twenty minutes to vote." [Texas primary]
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/texas-primary-lines/ (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/texas-primary-lines/)

“Eager voters endured waits of six hours or more in Cobb County, which was once solidly Republican but has voted for Democrats in recent elections, and joined lines that wrapped around polling places in solidly Democratic DeKalb County,” the outlet reported. “They also turned out in big numbers in north Georgia’s Floyd County, where support for President Donald Trump is strong.”
https://patriotdailypress.org/2020/10/13/georgia-residents-face-long-lines-on-first-day-of-early-voting-some-voters-had-to-wait-six-hours-or-more-to-cast-their-ballot/ (https://patriotdailypress.org/2020/10/13/georgia-residents-face-long-lines-on-first-day-of-early-voting-some-voters-had-to-wait-six-hours-or-more-to-cast-their-ballot/)

So I guess 6 and 7 hours sometimes.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 02:37:20 AM
Deamon,

“Depending on the state, getting a mail in ballot can require certain pre-conditions to be met which he wouldn't qualify for. I know my 2004 mail-in ballot required me to certify that I going to be outside of the area on election day and unable to physically vote in person. They've since changed the laws on that prior to Covid19, but other states still retained the more restrictive criteria until this year's events.”

I think absentee ballots should be reserved for absentee voters. There are distinct drawbacks to their use. If an “hour” wait is the best rational that Drake can come up with, and he has to search CNN to find that, his argument is difficult for me to take seriously.

Kidv,

“Some might view insulting someone's residence as an apparent argument to disregard their opinion as a personal attack.”

Did you make reference to the “metropolis of Spanish Fork”, and are you “... disregarding my opinion”? Do I need to recalibrate my sensitivity to feel “attacked”?

“But I guess it's true that Canada is socialist and also that it's a backwater, Noel C. implies, so it's not really an insult?”

It is socialist, and internationally Canada is an economic, military, trade, and policy lightweight. Facts do not care about your feelings.

“It appears that Noel C. is serious that we should disregard any Canadian's opinion on valid or reasonable election procedures.”

That would be an unwarranted leap in logic. There are highly respectable Canadians whose opinions I value for reasons quite unrelated to their nationality. Interestingly, they do not hold Canada up as an exemplar of international enlightenment. Your reasoning is drifting into tautology.

“I do not agree that we should disregard the opinions of people who live in backwaters on reasonable election procedures.“

Kidv, your reasoning is becoming circular again. Work to manage that habit... just my opinion.

“I also do not agree that we should disregard the opinions of people who happen to live in places with universal mail-in voting with signature verification as to whether that is a worthwhile voting option.“

As you pointed out, I am one of those people, and my opinion is that universal mail-in voting, with signature verification, is asinine. Are you ”disregarding” my opinion that it is not a ”worthwhile option“?

“So I guess 6 and 7 hours sometimes.”

How did we ever have a compassionate election prior to COVID-19? If a Mother Jones search is the source of your angst, call the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, in behalf of those people to complain. Better yet, assume that they are not potted plants, and can act for themselves.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 08, 2020, 03:27:37 AM
I liked this quote by Scott Aaronson ( https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5088 )
Quote
(1) A friend commented that Biden’s victory becomes more impressive after you contemplate the enthusiasm gap: Trump’s base believed that Trump was sent by God to fight Satanic pedophiles, whereas Biden’s base believed that Biden probably wasn’t a terrible human being. I replied that what we call the “Enlightenment” was precisely this, the switch from cowering before leaders who were sent by God to demanding leaders who probably aren’t terrible human beings.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 08, 2020, 04:00:14 AM
What I've seen personally was video of lines stretching at least 4 to 5 blocks in New York, I thought, in the last couple weeks, and many other places, as quick overviews on many news reports.  I don't know how long the waits actually were.

I've waited 2 hours to vote in a primary. (In 2016).  If California, Utah, and other states have their voting figured out, that's great.  I think the point is that we could understand that many places in the U.S. may require you to reserve 3-7 hours to vote, so let's figure out some reasonable ways to make voting in the U.S. a reasonable burden.


A thought experiment:

If the Utah legislature has adopted universal mail-in voting safeguarded by a digital database, matching signatures, and unique identifiers on ballots, envelopes, and voters, and Utah is in the running for most conservative state in the U.S., with the Utah legislature run by a Republican supermajority, where does that fit on the discussion of whether every vote being able to count being or not being a conservative vs. liberal concept?

I'm going to go with every citizen being able to vote without undue hassles being an acceptable conservative position.  Being an acceptable American position. 

So get the rest of the U.S. to accept Utah's standards and practices, because it exemplifies effective American principles. 

------------------------------

But really how do we commit voter fraud?

"Banana republic" voter fraud is committed by the government, regardless of the votes actually cast. 

Manipulation of individual ballots is by definition a small scale operation.  Submitting fake ballots is limited by the ability to forge someone's signature, and is only possible to slip through if the actual voter does not vote, which is protected by the risk of a felony.  So that's the risk of mailing out ballots to all registered voters, right?  Fake voters, non-eligible voters, dead voters, are all completely traceable and verifiable for the purpose of protecting the records.  Large scale fraudulent voting (enough to affect an election), is not possible with the current standards available in the U.S.

Fraudulent voting of any type is a negligible problem in the U.S.  (It is also a negligible problem in Canada, coincidentally.) This is not a tautology.  It is a fact.

People keep saying, "But you could!" But people don't.  People who attempt to submit fraudulent votes by and large get caught, and their votes don't count.  I am not aware of any studies finding any widespread problem of voter fraud.  Every study created finds no evidence of non-negligible voter fraud.  People continue to make allegations, but no one has found evidence which matches the allegations.  People who try, appear to get caught. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/02/21/rosa-maria-ortega-texas-woman-sentenced-8-years-illegal-voting-paroled-and-faces-deportation/4798922002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/02/21/rosa-maria-ortega-texas-woman-sentenced-8-years-illegal-voting-paroled-and-faces-deportation/4798922002/) [a specific example]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-checking-attorney-general-william-barr-s-claims-on-voter-fraud-election-interference-and-jacob-blake/ar-BB18GuFr (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-checking-attorney-general-william-barr-s-claims-on-voter-fraud-election-interference-and-jacob-blake/ar-BB18GuFr) fact checking William Barr]

Taking Utah as a positive example, maintaining the database seems to be safe enough and meet American principles of responsibility, equal access, and safety.

The problem with declaring voter fraud as a "conservative" issue, [and taking actions which tend to suppress votes in the name of security], is that a large segment of historical justification of voter ID and ballot security measures were specifically taken to suppress minority votes and were the reason for the creation of the voting rights act. 

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-do-i-protect-my-right-to-vote-/what-is-voter-suppression-.html (https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-do-i-protect-my-right-to-vote-/what-is-voter-suppression-.html)

The conservatives in Utah, for instance, recognize the benefit and ability of finding a proper balance, and that it's possible to have easy, open, effective, secure, and safe voting without being accused of voter suppression.  I suspect they recognize that's a benefit to the conservative brand.  They probably recognize that making false claims, or being aligned with historically anti-american programs is not a good look.

Enforcement is obviously necessary, and appears to be occurring.  People that attempt ineligible votes, by all accounts, do not succeed.  (see reports cited above).

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 05:59:47 AM
Kidv,

“If the Utah legislature has adopted universal mail-in voting safeguarded by a digital database, matching signatures, and unique identifiers on ballots, envelopes, and voters, and Utah is in the running for most conservative state in the U.S., with the Utah legislature run by a Republican supermajority, where does that fit on the discussion of whether every vote being able to count being or not being a conservative vs. liberal concept?”

One of the current lawsuits is focused upon electronic signature verification failure. What the technicalities are behind that alleged failure are yet to be publicly clarified, but there should be a way to create a readily accessible low-resolution signature verification system readable at the poll. My issue with Utah’s present system is that the State sends out unsolicited live ballots, and I do not have confidence that an electronic signature record has the resolution, or nuanced pen stroke pressure detection capability, to reveal even a mediocre forgery. Banks use fingerprints as a backup to signatures for that reason. Taken to that level of security, a hypothetically revised Utah system would work regardless of irresponsibly distributed ballots. Utah has a long way to go before it is there however.

“But really how do we commit voter fraud?“

Fraud in a mail-in ballot scenario is defined as someone, other than the authorized voter, casting the ballot, or unduly influencing the rightful voter’s selections. 

" ‘Banana republic’ voter fraud is committed by the government, regardless of the votes actually cast.”

That is not usually how it happens. Enthusiastic Party supporters are the typical tool of election fraud. We had our Tammany Hall, or "boss," politics of Chicago, which mirror South American tactics of power acquisition.

“Manipulation of individual ballots is by definition a small scale operation.“

Not if corruption is culturally endemic and highly motivated, in conjunction with insecure ballot distribution. Harvesting schemes also defy a “small scale” definition.

“Submitting fake ballots is limited by the ability to forge someone's signature, and is only possible to slip through if the actual voter does not vote,“

Assuming instantaneous detection, how is that conflict resolved?

“... which is protected by the risk of a felony.“

Only if there is a substantial chance of getting caught. Tell me how that happens.

“So that's the risk of mailing out ballots to all registered voters, right?“

As amended, correct.

“Fake voters, non-eligible voters, dead voters, are all completely traceable and verifiable for the purpose of protecting the records.”

Traceable how?

“Large scale fraudulent voting (enough to affect an election), is not possible with the current standards available in the U.S.“

That is what Democrats would have you believe, however; only critical counties need to be targeted in a close election, not an entire network of State polls.

“Fraudulent voting of any type is a negligible problem in the U.S.  (It is also a negligible problem in Canada, coincidentally.) This is not a tautology. It is a fact.“

You just walked off the plank. How are you going to prove a negative?

“People keep saying, ‘But you could!’ But people don't.  People who attempt to submit fraudulent votes by and large get caught, and their votes don't count.”

You are going circular on me again.

“I am not aware of any studies finding any widespread problem of voter fraud.  Every study created finds no evidence of non-negligible voter fraud.”

Every study of what election(s)? Certainly you are not going to tell me that late 19th to early 20th century New York, or Chicago, pass the sniff test. How about Peronist Argentina, or modern Bolivia, Uruguay, and (again) Argentina? Where leftist ideology gains a foot-hold, electoral corruption flourishes, and power concentrates. Contemporary Democratic politics have taken a decidedly unapologetic socialist turn.

“People continue to make allegations, but no one has found evidence which matches the allegations.  People who try, appear to get caught.”

There you go again; how would you know? Even Donald concedes fraud will occur. I contend that current political environment is an incubator for significant voter fraud. Let the investigations run their course.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 07:07:38 AM
Biden's now up by 10,000 in Georgia.  There's no litigation, short of throwing out all the results, that's going to get Trump anywhere close.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 07:19:40 AM
Bret Baier said something very reasonable (/sarc) a number of times in the past couple of days. Essentially, his statement boils down to "There is no evidence of voting fraud during this election, but we must continue investigating."

There is also no evidence that Donald Trump poisoned Beau Biden, but clearly, we must investigate. There is no evidence that child slaves are being sexually abused in a pizza parlour's basement, but we must investigate.

Note there is a difference between protecting the voting system, and yes, that includes verification, and acting on a belief (in this case that there is widespread voting fraud) for which there is no evidence.  Especially when the costs of the proposed actions, perceived by many, have a greater cost than that of the minimal levels of fraud currently experienced.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 08, 2020, 07:46:37 AM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2020/10/pa-man-accused-of-trying-to-sign-his-dead-mother-up-for-mail-in-voting.html%3foutputType=amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2020/10/pa-man-accused-of-trying-to-sign-his-dead-mother-up-for-mail-in-voting.html%3foutputType=amp)

Noel you should really give that Republican some lessons on how to commit untraceable voter fraud by mail.

This just shows election officials do notice when dead people request ballots and try to vote.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 08:26:07 AM
Noel: "... only critical counties need to be targeted in a close election, not an entire network of State polls"

Especially when they don't have to be targeted until after the fact.

And that's the danger of accepting late ballots, or even just suddenly "found" ballots, like the ones that put LBJ over the top in Texas. It would be easier to believe that targeted voter fraud is not possible after it's determined how many votes are needed to secure a win if exactly that type of voter fraud hadn't already been done and the perps also known as the Democrats got away with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal#:~:text=The%20Box%2013%20scandal%20was,which%20were%20in%20Johnson's%20favor.

"The Box 13 scandal was an event which occurred in Alice, Texas during the Senate election of 1948. Lyndon B. Johnson was on the verge of losing the election to Coke Stevenson. Six days after polls had closed, 202 additional ballots were discovered in Precinct 13, which were in Johnson's favor. Stevenson was about 854 votes ahead of Johnson during the run-off. Stevenson was still ahead by midday, but after the discovery of the additional ballots, 200 additional votes for Johnson were discovered, leading to his victory by 87 votes out of 1 million voters.

Harry Lee Adams became suspicious and began to investigate. Adams noticed that the last 200 ballots were different from the rest. The color ink of the ink and handwriting used on the tally sheet appeared to be identical, and they were in alphabetical order... The investigation eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black, ruled that the federal government was not allowed to get involved with a state election... After the election, some thought consequences would be inevitable. Despite this, there would be no charges, because nothing could be proven."


----------------------------------------------

So apparently even with identical handwriting and the tally sheet being in alphabetical order that wasn't enough to prove voter fraud. Like I said, it'd be a lot easier to believe it couldn't happen if it didn't happen already.

I'd wager that the vast majority of crimes in general with voter fraud included can never be successfully prosecuted because there isn't enough evidence. Sometimes there is no evidence at all. Like with a serial killer who knows how to get rid of the body and leaves no evidence. Does that mean all of his victims are still alive anyway just because it can't be proven in a court of law that he killed anyone? And you hardly need to be a Hannibal or Dexter to get away with voter fraud especially with people less competent than keystone cops and less motivated than an old dog in the sweltering heat of an August afternoon trying to find it.

Having said that, do I know there is massive voter fraud or even not so massive but surgically targeted voter fraud? Nope. I have no clue. There's no way to know for sure. All we do know is many of the people involved have a history of demonstrated unreliability, rabid partisanship, and have declared their utmost hatred for Donald Trump and their willingness to do anything to  stop him. So only motive. And means. But no smoking gun.

It's interesting that the Supreme Court wouldn't get involved and said it was a matter for only the state to handle. In other words, all you need is corruption at the state level and you are off to the races. But that can't happen because there is no corruption at the state level, of course...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 08, 2020, 08:43:42 AM
Quote
Having said that, do I know there is massive voter fraud or even not so massive but surgically targeted voter fraud? Nope. I have no clue. There's no way to know for sure. All we do know is many of the people involved have a history of demonstrated unreliability, rabid partisanship, and have declared their utmost hatred for Donald Trump and their willingness to do anything to  stop him. So only motive. And means. But no smoking gun.

What you're saying is that there's never any possible circumstance in these election where Trump would get defeated, and you'd not be spewing the exact same bull*censored* about fraud.

However among the candidates, it's not the Democrats but rather only Donald Trump who asked his voters to vote twice, once by mail and once in person, so if you want to condemn someone for wanting to commit fraud, start by *censored*ing condemning him.

But no, the person who actually asked his supporters to act illegally to get him elected, that's the one person you'll never condemn for wanting fraudulent elections.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 09:10:14 AM
By y'all's reasoning voter fraud didn't happen in Alice, Texas in the 1948 election. Just didn't happen. Sure there was the story but that's all it was. Just a story. Sure there was the reporter but it was just accusations with no evidence. There was never any real police investigation. Nobody was ever charged with a crime. Nobody ever went on trial. Nobody was ever convicted. So ipso facto there was no voter fraud.

Except... actually there was.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 09:16:08 AM
One big potential problem in Pennsylvania is if some districts are separating the late ballots while others are purposefully comingling them so they can never be separated out. Now if the areas separating them are where Republicans are making some of the decisions and the areas not separating them are where the Democrats are making the decisions, if those ballots do end up getting disqualified that's going to be a real pickle.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 08, 2020, 09:26:01 AM
By y'all's reasoning voter fraud didn't happen in Alice, Texas in the 1948 election. Just didn't happen. Sure there was the story but that's all it was. Just a story. Sure there was the reporter but it was just accusations with no evidence. There was never any real police investigation. Nobody was ever charged with a crime. Nobody ever went on trial. Nobody was ever convicted. So ipso facto there was no voter fraud.

Except... actually there was.

No, by YOUR reasoning Trump committed vote in the 2016 election AND the 2020 election, and we don't have to prove anything, we can just assert it. Because see, he *really* wants to win, and he himself admits it's easy to commit mail fraud, so obviously he has the means and the motive, so he's therefore committing fraud. And *censored* the absence of evidence.

Look, you hate that you lost, WE GET IT. And you're sore losers, WE GET IT. And you're conspiracy nuts, convinced that everyone is conspiring against you, WE GET IT, and that the rest of the world is just as amoral as the person who strolled through the locker rooms of undressed 15-year old girls and bragged about it afterwards.

But this election wasn't even *censored*ing close, and the fact that you're NOT condemning the *one* person who publicly asked for voter fraud to be committed on his behalf (i.e. Trump) condemns you too.

One big potential problem in Pennsylvania is if some districts are separating the late ballots while others are purposefully comingling them so they can never be separated out. Now if the areas separating them are where Republicans are making some of the decisions and the areas not separating them are where the Democrats are making the decisions, if those ballots do end up getting disqualified that's going to be a real pickle.

If Trump stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot somebody, you'd still vote for him.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 10:15:15 AM
It's fascinating how outraged some people get if you just mention the mere possibility that Democrats might commit voter fraud.

(In haughty indignant voice) "Why... I never!...."

No they would never do that. Of course not. They are paragons of virtue. The epitome of the law abiding citizen. They respect the laws and follow them to the letter all the time every time. Like they respect and abide by the drug laws, the immigration laws, the laws against rioting and looting and arson, in fact just all the laws.

Well... a few may step just a teensy tiny bit over the line on some of those once in a blue moon, like the activist lawyers who threw a Molotov cocktail into a police vehicle, but voter fraud? Never!

And the hypocrisy over fretting about possibly false charges and sometimes not even charges just speculating about the possibility, that would undermine the confidence of the American people in the election is also rich after what the Democrats did for four years with their Russian collusion delusion and hoax even going so far as impeachment.

If we had a system in place that made voter fraud difficult then yeah, sure, I could see the outrage. But when Democrats fight tooth and nail against any system that might reasonably be expected to detect even the simplest and most obvious attempts at voter fraud such as when they won't even allow common sense voter I.D., it's perfectly rational after that not to have the greatest level of confidence in the integrity of the system. We're basically on the honor system here. And plenty of people on both sides have amply demonstrated they are, to be politically correct perhaps it's most generously described as "honor challenged".
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 08, 2020, 10:20:43 AM
Yes, let me also mention the possibility that you'll commit rape and murder.

Your outrage over the Russian investigation is also quite amusing. A crime that actually happened, and the only issue was how many were involved - and in the end people couldn't prove Trump was involved, and so you argue they should be ashamed to ever investigate the person who benefitted from the crime at all. It's actually sane and not at all shameful to investigate the person who benefits from the crime.

And as for the impeachment, that should have gone ahead, Trump was clearly asking for a quid-pro-quo, using the power of the state to get a foreign power to give him political ammo against his political opponents in the USA. Shameful that the Republicans refused to impeach him for that. There you had the means, the motive, the opportunity, the smoking gun and pretty much every proof you needee to convict.

But instead, you declare a crime that you have absolutely zero evidence it occured, because you can't stand the idea of your psychopathic villain not getting a second term. You don't investigate an existing crime, you invent it....
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 10:37:42 AM
How would I have any evidence of anything? I'm hundreds of miles away. If I tried to get the evidence I'd get arrested and locked up. The question people can't answer is if there was voter fraud then what are the security mechanisms in place to catch it especially when it's an inside job. The observers? What if they are not allowed to be close enough to observe?

That's what was supposedly a problem.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-speaker-house-newt-gingrich-172256262.html

"In an interview with Fox News on Thursday night, Gingrich discussed one of the Trump campaign's lawsuits in which the president's team complained that their poll watchers weren't allowed to be close enough to observe the ballot counting."

And besides that, what are they really observing anyway? How do they know where the ballots came from or that they are legit. If they observe a bunch of fraudulent ballots, what is going to be the proof that they are fraudulent? Like I said, we don't have the security mechanisms in place for anyone to get up on their high horse and insist that nobody doubt the integrity of our elections especially when both past as well as present behavior is duly considered.

If you want to have faith, that's fine. But that's really all it is. Some might even call it wishful thinking. But when I don't know I admit it. I have no idea if our elections are secure or not. I have no idea if there is massive fraud or not. It's like a lot of things. There's just no way to know for sure. What gets suspicious though is when people insist they know the truth about something that is not knowable and then insist that lack of proof one way or the other proves that they are right.

Now I'm not saying that because I can't prove there isn't voter fraud than there is. I'm saying I don't know. But apparently it's not a problem to say that because it isn't proven that there is voter fraud that means that there isn't. That's just too much of a stretch for me but if other people want to go that far everyone has that prerogative.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
“So I guess 6 and 7 hours sometimes.”

How did we ever have a compassionate election prior to COVID-19? If a Mother Jones search is the source of your angst, call the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, in behalf of those people to complain. Better yet, assume that they are not potted plants, and can act for themselves.

I guess some of this falls under quirks of the various state electoral systems.

The Secretary of State has final certification authority and issues guidelines for the various counties to adhere to, but the operation of the general election polling locations is up to the County Clerk's office of the respective county where I'm at. They are the ones in charge of hiring any poll workers they choose to hire, and training for any volunteers and paid poll workers they decide to field for that election.

So it does come back to my earlier question about "Why do these areas seem to be unable to field enough poll workers?" Because if these Democrat run counties are unable to properly staff their own polling locations and they're running on a comparable model.. Then the people those Democratic voters need to be complaining to are 1) Democrats, 2) Their County or City Governments. (As I understand in some locations the city is also a county, or in the case or Virginia, the City may exist outside of a county in general.)

I won't disagree about the Republicans getting into Partisan election shenanigans in many parts of the country. But my credulity at Democrats in particular complaining about problems  trying to vote in deeply democrat controlled districts, in democrat controlled counties, and especially in democrat controlled states(California) is pretty low. Seems to me they're likely experiencing a "self-inflicted injury" on this front and the people to blame in many of those cases are members of their own party.

And yes, this applies for Republicans who have to wait out long lines to vote in Republican Controlled Counties in Republican states.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 08, 2020, 10:41:05 AM
The observers? What if they are not allowed to be close enough to observe?

That's what was supposedly a problem.

No, it wasn't. It's one of the many blatant, blatant lies that Trump said. They had to admit even before the court, that yes Republican observers were observing every moment of the counting.

This is just a LIE. And you repeat it stupidly, because well Trump said it so it must be true, no matter how often it's disproven, no matter how much of a blatant lie it is.

Quote
If you want to have faith, that's fine.
Bull*censored* again. It's you who has faith on every single piece of bullcrap lie that Trump is psychopathically spewing.

You're the equivalent of a cultist and Trump is your cult-leader, the chosen of God, whose word you trust no matter what your own senses are telling you.

Don't project your own flaws unto others.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 08, 2020, 10:49:06 AM
Quote
If you want to have faith, that's fine.
Bull*censored* again. It's you who has faith on every single piece of bullcrap lie that Trump is psychopathically spewing.

You're the equivalent of a cultist and Trump is your cult-leader, the chosen of God, whose word you trust no matter what your own senses are telling you.

Don't project your own flaws unto others.

That's not a fair characterization of Cherry.

I agree that we're not just having faith that the count is being fair. We're just trusting in all the election officials and observers of both parties in the relevant states that they would catch any systematic cheating.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 11:02:25 AM
https://www.wgal.com/article/pa-commonwealth-court-allows-trump-campaign-observers-to-get-closer-to-philadelphia-ballot-counting/34589143#



"The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled Thursday that Trump campaign observers can get closer to the vote counting in Philadelphia.


A judge reversed a lower court ruling and said all candidates, watchers or candidate representatives will be permitted "to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols, including wearing masks and maintaining social distancing."

Trump's team had claimed observers were being kept too far away to clearly see the ballot canvassing process.

The Trump campaign called the court's decision a "major victory for election integrity."

The Philadelphia Board of Elections has appealed the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Trump campaign is also seeking to intervene in a Pennsylvania case at the Supreme Court that deals with whether ballots received up to three days after the election can be counted.

Another lawsuit sought to dismiss a directive allowing voters to provide missing proof of identification up to six days after the election. A court just ruled the six-day limit will stay in place."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That looks like local news.

So how close exactly were they being allowed to observe that they apparently thought was not close enough so had to sue to get closer?

And then they apparently won that lawsuit which would reasonably indicate that they deserved to be closer than they were allowed to be previously.

And if the first court's ruling was reversed wouldn't that mean that the first court ruled they didn't have to be as close as the observers wanted to be but the higher court ruled that they weren't being allowed to be close enough?

How many ballots were counted in between the lower court's ruling and the higher court's?

And with covid and the six foot rule, is being six feet away really close enough to properly observe anything that is written down? What are the font sizes on these ballots, like 65 or what?

The wording there was a little confusing. "Within six feet". I'm not sure if that means they can get closer than six feet or they have to stay six feet away. It seems like that would be important to know.

----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the kind word. Yeah it's not fair to say this is all about Trump. I'm old enough now I suppose that the integrity of elections has been an issue for decades, long before Trump was on the political radar.  I would like to have full confidence in the process. I really would. But I'm not seeing a process that really warrants that much confidence. When the priority is to make sure every person can vote who is eligible I guess that means that there is going to have to be some give in the how secure the system can be. Making it too secure apparently means that some people will get disenfranchised. So I don't see how it's so wrong to not have complete confidence in a system that is purposefully left less than fully secured.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 08, 2020, 11:08:37 AM
Grant,

What part of my statement do you have an issue with?

You may be unaware of this Noel, but that's understandable.  This was part of the secret meeting.  But I'll let you know because you won't believe me anyways. 

Canada is actually the center of the socialist conspiracy.  It's totally not a backwater.  Trudeau is actually pulling the strings for Venezuela, China, and Norway.  When world socialism is made reality, Ottawa will be revealed as the world globalist capitol. 

I addition, I don't think that the ignorance of the majority of Americans can be used as evidence to prove that something is unimportant.  The majority of Americans can't even name a single Supreme Court Justice.  The majority of Americans also believe that Biden is preferable to Trump.  I don't know if you want to use that as evidence for anything. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 11:30:16 AM
Pretty sure China is literally fascist these days, they're communists(or socialists as you prefer) in name only.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 11:43:49 AM
Grant,

“You may be unaware of this Noel, but that's understandable.  This was part of the secret meeting.  But I'll let you know because you won't believe me anyways.”

Thank for an insider’s perspective.

“Canada is actually the center of the socialist conspiracy.  It's totally not a backwater.  Trudeau is actually pulling the strings for Venezuela, China, and Norway.  When world socialism is made reality, Ottawa will be revealed as the world globalist capitol.”

Ah, I suspected as much.

“I addition, I don't think that the ignorance of the majority of Americans can be used as evidence to prove that something is unimportant.”

Now you are shaking my confidence. Is Grant an American?

“The majority of Americans can't even name a single Supreme Court Justice.  The majority of Americans also believe that Biden is preferable to Trump.  I don't know if you want to use that as evidence for anything.”

Umm, Biden’s nomination was a Democratic brain fart? I follow you.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 12:41:06 PM
Grant’s attempted humor aside; does anyone on this board really expect that flaws in election security will not be exposed in the course of pending Republican investigations? If so, send me a PM, and let’s lay odds.

Another election is coming in 2022, again in 2024. Georgia will be going through this drill in only two months. Democrats have an interest, equal to Republicans, in getting it right. The best way to perpetuate/embolden election fraud is to make it safe to commit, and only confidence in election results can establish groundwork for a “reconciliation“, that Biden claims to seek.

What kind of screws do you need to have loose to roll-over on the integrity of the most fundamental operation in a viable democracy? Democrats have invited doubt into the process by sacrificing security to enhance their candidate’s prospects.

This is the price of that expediency.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 08, 2020, 01:36:53 PM
And that's all I'm asking for. Thorough investigations. Very thorough. So in depth they make one of the IRS's famous full course proctology style audits look like an Uncle Joe shoulder rub and hair sniff. You don't always get what you expect, but you do always get what you inspect.

And if they turn up nothing then so be it. At least one time we should check it out all the way, leaving no stone unturned, forensic analysts of the ballots, the whole nine yards.

I don't think we've ever had a real investigation like the one President Trump is about to unleash, and frankly it's long overdue.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 02:21:45 PM
Drake,

“Again with the ‘personal experience’ line? Most of us don't have to have a personal experience to know things are happening. I know your observation of the world stops at the end of your nose, but most of us can have empathy for people who are not us.”

“Things are happening”, now that is insightful. I have waited “more than an hour“ to get on “Pirates of the Caribbean”, and “the Haunted Mansion“, without developing a hunger for “empathy“. Again, if in-person voting is too rigorous a sacrifice for you, request an absentee ballot.

Would have loved to. Couldn't do so, Texas wouldn't let me.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 08, 2020, 02:57:22 PM
What will the Trump people claim when most of his law suits get tossed for lack of evidence?  Again, in a court of law you have to prove wrong doing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 08, 2020, 03:05:35 PM
Grant, you weren't supposed to expose the whole plan before you liberate the American proletariat from the oppressive yoke of our oppressive constitution and confiscate all our guns!
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 08, 2020, 04:16:22 PM


“I am not aware of any studies finding any widespread problem of voter fraud.  Every study created finds no evidence of non-negligible voter fraud.”

Every study of what election(s)? Certainly you are not going to tell me that late 19th to early 20th century New York, or Chicago, pass the sniff test. How about Peronist Argentina, or modern Bolivia, Uruguay, and (again) Argentina? Where leftist ideology gains a foot-hold, electoral corruption flourishes, and power concentrates. Contemporary Democratic politics have taken a decidedly unapologetic socialist turn.

“People continue to make allegations, but no one has found evidence which matches the allegations.  People who try, appear to get caught.”

There you go again; how would you know? Even Donald concedes fraud will occur. I contend that current political environment is an incubator for significant voter fraud. Let the investigations run their course.

noel c. doesn't notice or respond to the two links I posted after my statement, which are the simply two exemplars off a google search giving some background on false allegations of voter fraud and describing unsuccessful voter fraud.   We're talking about U.S. elections. The studies are of attempted fraud of in U.S. elections, I'll say in the last 20 years. The findings are that the U.S. does not have a systemic problem with voter fraud.

"Dunlap’s lawsuit even unearthed a draft of the commission’s final report, circulated by Kossack, the Pence aide, which confident staffers had started writing in November 2017, after just two public meetings. It’s titled “Evidence of Election Integrity and Voter Fraud Issues.” It doesn’t contain any. The report offers no more than a blank list of categories — “instances of fraudulent or improper voting,” “noncitizen voting,” etc. — that Kobach and his allies couldn’t fill with any actual examples. “Glaringly empty,” Dunlap says. In a letter to Pence and Kobach after he had reviewed those 8,000 pages, Dunlap named the larger problem: “That the Commission predicted it would find widespread evidence of fraud actually reveals a troubling bias,” he wrote. “A very few commissioners worked to buttress their preordained conclusions shielded from dissent or dialogue.”"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kris-kobach-donald-trump-voter-fraud-myths-vote-suppression-990300/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kris-kobach-donald-trump-voter-fraud-myths-vote-suppression-990300/)

Let's try this more directly:

"A subsequent study The Guardian cites found that more than 99% of the people the system had flagged for potential voter fraud were, in fact, distinct voters."
"The article also mentions Kobach’s opinion piece for right-wing publication Breitbart in 2017, which claimed there was proof that New Hampshire’s elections had been swung because of voter fraud. The state’s top election official reprimanded Kobach, saying there was no such proof."
“It’s the same thing over and over and over — say it, say it, say it — and push it out there,” Lorraine Minnite, a professor at Rutgers University-Camden who studies voter fraud, told The Guardian. “It functions just like propaganda.”
"Trump appointed Kobach vice chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity in 2017. The commission was disbanded in 2018, after finding no evidence to support widespread voter-fraud allegations."
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article246745826.html (https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article246745826.html)

"The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday."
https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d (https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d)

Hey! Here's an actual study referenced above, which studies and reviews the claims of voter fraud:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F0F11207B6EC1A0A5DE18DC283ACE926/S000305541900087Xa.pdf/one_person_one_vote_estimating_the_prevalence_of_double_voting_in_us_presidential_elections.pdf (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F0F11207B6EC1A0A5DE18DC283ACE926/S000305541900087Xa.pdf/one_person_one_vote_estimating_the_prevalence_of_double_voting_in_us_presidential_elections.pdf)


Just do some google searches and follow some links.  The news reports the consensus in line with the finding that "After extensive research, Levitt (2007) and Minnite (2010) conclude that little to no voter fraud—of any stripe—has occurred in recent U.S. elections." (cambridge link, id.)

As I do my google-fu, it seems some people disagree with those findings, but no one is still presenting any actual evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The news stories I'd found and linked (or didn't like) indicate stories of the people who try to commit voter fraud are not being successful.

-----------------------------------

The balance, which hasn't been responded to, is that tightening voter ID historically was directed to illegal voter suppression and functionally continues to do so now.  For this reason (equal protection) the Kansas voter ID law was ruled unconstitutional in 2018, decision affirmed by the court of appeals in 2020. 

"“The district court found that even under calculations from one of the Secretary’s experts, the estimated number of suspended applications that belonged to noncitizens was ‘statistically indistinguishable from zero,’ while ‘more than 99% of the individuals’ whose voter-registration applications were suspended were citizens who presumably would have been able to vote but for the DPOC requirement,” the court noted in its 84-page ruling."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-voter-id-law-unconstitutional (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-voter-id-law-unconstitutional)

The appellate decision is in the link the Washington Examiner link. Probably a good read with actual evidence.
Probably supports the idea that Canada and the U.S. have equivalent levels of voter fraud, which is to say, negligible. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 08, 2020, 04:23:46 PM
That all said:  The evidence I see supporting vigorously checking and following up on potential voter fraud in the U.S. seems worthwhile.  Enforcement and having a good database result in the findings that attempts at voter fraud, intentional or no, don't result in invalid ballots being included in final election results (in the news reports I have found.)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 08, 2020, 07:10:19 PM
Kidv,

“People keep saying, ‘But you could!But people don't.  People who attempt to submit fraudulent votes by and large get caught, and their votes don't count.”

Military Maxim:

“Do not base your plan of action on what the enemy would do. Base your actions on what the enemy could do.”

Rear Admiral Richmond Turner foolishly led three heavy cruisers to annihilation, and a fourth scuttled, constituting the worst U.S. naval defeat of WWII, at the battle of Savo Island on August 8th, 1942 by ignoring this common-sense application of military doctrine. There is a reason that political contests are called ”campaigns”.

As I was already aware, and you pointed out, the voting integrity commission did not find an absence of voter fraud. I am also aware of Tenth Circuit District Court Judge Julia Robinson’s decision on Kansas’s 2018 voter identification law, which similarly did not find an absence of voter fraud (67 cases), yet struck down the law notwithstanding. Judge Robinson is wrong, and that precident will not survive review by the current Supreme Court. Bank on it.

You keep referring to voter fraud, that was detected, as quasi-proof that all voter fraud is detected, and punished. You are not going to force an explanation of what is wrong with that reasoning, are you? When estimating cockroach infestation, spotting a single one during daylight hours is a pretty good indicator that 27+ are staying under protective cover.

Conversely, claiming that little, or no, voter fraud was ”proven“, and therefore little, or no, voter fraud ”exists“, is formally an argument from ignorance. I am not going to chase that canard no matter how many times you repeat it, especially as applied to current conditions promoting cultivated non-traceability of unsolicited ballots.

“The evidence I see supporting vigorously checking and following up on potential voter fraud in the U.S. seems worthwhile.”

Great, we are in agreement.

“Enforcement and having a good database result in the findings that attempts at voter fraud, intentional or no, don't result in invalid ballots being included in final election results (in the news reports I have found.)“

Yes, that is the basic premise behind treating opportunity for fraud, as likelihood of fraud. Door locks are not an esthetic design feature.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 09:22:17 PM
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Biden could afford to lose any two battleground states in which he is currently leading and still take the electoral college.  What would be needed for Biden to have successfully "cheated" and avoided losing would have been at least 3 separate, wide scale, secret fraud projects in 3 separate states, each with their own separate voting mechanisms, without which he would have lost.  And none of those battleground states mailed out unsolicited ballots (with the exception of 6-EC-vote Nevada).

That is quite the vast conspiracy to have kept secret. 

OR

Given that Trump was the most disliked incumbent in modern history, never even having reached 50% approval, who was uniquely controversial and who revelled in being so, who presided over the worst health crisis in a century and by most accounts failed miserably (especially as compared to other countries) and who was out-fund-raised and outspent by about 50% during the campaign, it is not at all surprising that record numbers of people across the whole country came to vote him out.  No, it can't be that the man who presided over more criminals being convicted or pleading guilty than any other modern president could have anything to do with his loss; nor that Russia was accepted by congress and the intelligence community as having helped him get elected; nor that, even knowing that, he just couldn't distance himself from being seen to suck up to Putin, or attempt to bribe other countries to help him in getting re-elected.

No, it couldn't be that.  It must be the unfalsifiable 'fraud' that, even when not found, is somehow still evidence of its existence.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2020, 09:41:48 PM
Biden could afford to lose any two battleground states in which he is currently leading and still take the electoral college.  What would be needed for Biden to have successfully "cheated" and avoided losing would have been at least 3 separate, wide scale, secret fraud projects in 3 separate states, each with their own separate voting mechanisms, without which he would have lost.  And none of those battleground states mailed out unsolicited ballots (with the exception of 6-EC-vote Nevada).

Trump's so accustomed to winning, or at least litigating his way to a form of success, this should hardly be a shocker. I don't think anyone expected him to be anything but a sore loser. So News at 11?

Certain things about the really close counts suggest that a recount might shift the outcome, but that's highly unlikely, and probably only in Georgia, which wouldn't change the outcome nationally. It's possibly Trump's legal team may manage to litigate their way into getting some other votes invalidated, but I doubt it will be anywhere near enough to make a difference. Although many Republicans and Conservatives are curious to see just how much fraud he'll be able to demonstrate in court. That curiosity more than anything is what is leading to a lot of that silence you're hearing. It isn't them holding their breath hoping for a Trump upset victory through litigation. They want to see what Trump's legal team can turn up.

Quote
Given that Trump was the most disliked incumbent in modern history, never even having reached 50% approval, who was uniquely controversial and who revelled in being so,

Agreed, despite low enthusiasm for Biden himself, there was plenty of it for defeating Trump. His trying to bluff and otherwise bloviate his way through problems might work well enough in his real estate dealings or in the boardroom of companies he owns a controlling interest in. But it doesn't work as PotUS, especially when you have a highly hostile press corps out for your blood.

Quote
who presided over the worst health crisis in a century and by most accounts failed miserably (especially as compared to other countries)

That remains to be seen, IIRC the per capita numbers for the US aren't that far off from Sweden even now. And the health crises isn't over yet, until it is in the rearview, it is really hard to tell which option truly was "the better one."

Quote
and who was out-fund-raised and outspent by about 50% during the campaign,

Funny you should mention that, considering how well that huge fundraising advantage worked out for the Democratic "down ballot." The Republicans retained control of every state legislature they already held, gained New Hamsphire and Alaska, and also now control the governorship of Montana in addition to its legislature. The new Republicans in the House of Representatives are a nice touch as well. Even with the huge financing advantage enjoyed by the Democratic Party's billionaire donor cadre.

This year the DNC cemented its role as the preferred party of Billionaires. If that doesn't speak to entitlement, what does?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Biden raised $368 million from small donors (donations of less than 200$).  Trump only raised $268 million from small donors.

Biden also nabbed more big money donations than did Trump.

Does that really say anything about entitlement? What do you mean by entitlement?  Do the Democrats have a sense of entitlement because people, wealthy and otherwise, wanted to get rid of Trump enough to pay for the privilege?  Are donations considered government entitlements now?  What exactly do you mean?

At any rate, I brought up Biden's fundraising advantage to illustrate just how much so many people wanted to get rid of Trump.  If you want to suggest those donations will eventually lead to a quid pro quo, knock yourself out :)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 09, 2020, 12:23:21 AM
At any rate, I brought up Biden's fundraising advantage to illustrate just how much so many people wanted to get rid of Trump.

I've actually wondered whether there's an asymmetry between the sorts of things left-wing vs right-wing people think they should be doing as part of the civic participation. If you looked at demographics across the board, would there be asymmetries in any of the following categories:

-Writing to Congress
-Showing up for town hall sessions
-Answering phone polls
-Sending donations to political candidates (purely as civic duty, not as a PAC or quid pro quo political maneuver)
-Volunteering to assist with campaigns or other political work

I'm sure there are other things I could list. I just wonder whether it's roughly equal left vs right, or whether in some areas conservatives feel more strongly they should be doing that things, vs other things for liberals. Not saying that's necessarily behind a disparity in small donations, it just got me thinking. Like, in terms of sending money to a candidate, does a certain world view have to be present to think that sending $25 to Biden is a good idea - for example, "every little bit helps!" or "hey my voice counts too!" or something like that? Maybe as opposed to someone whose political persuasion is more like "hey those big boys are gonna do what they're gonna do and don't pay attention to little old me anyhow." 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 09, 2020, 04:12:10 AM
"Although many Republicans and Conservatives are curious to see just how much fraud he'll be able to demonstrate in court."

That's a very good point. Just because there may not have been enough voter fraud to change the results of the election doesn't mean this isn't a great opportunity to closely look into exactly how much voter fraud is going on, who is responsible, and to hold them accountable and learn something to help prepare for the next election. If after all is said and done everything looks pretty much hunky-dory, then that's great. That's worth knowing too and not just hoping everything is okay. A good investigation by Trump and his team that turns up little to nothing will do a lot to inspire confidence in our process, and if it turns up some things that we need to know even if they don't change the results of the election then at the end we'll be better informed for it so it's well worth the effort.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 09, 2020, 06:55:40 AM
"Although many Republicans and Conservatives are curious to see just how much fraud he'll be able to demonstrate in court."

That's a very good point. Just because there may not have been enough voter fraud to change the results of the election doesn't mean this isn't a great opportunity to closely look into exactly how much voter fraud is going on, who is responsible, and to hold them accountable and learn something to help prepare for the next election. If after all is said and done everything looks pretty much hunky-dory, then that's great. That's worth knowing too and not just hoping everything is okay. A good investigation by Trump and his team that turns up little to nothing will do a lot to inspire confidence in our process, and if it turns up some things that we need to know even if they don't change the results of the election then at the end we'll be better informed for it so it's well worth the effort.

His voter fraud commission tried that after the last election and turned up almost nothing. Now is the time to help the nation heal and concede. Trump has 0 evidence of massive vote fraud. Nothing large enough to flip multiple states. At this point investigating and finding 100 fraudulent votes in the nation is simply divisive. Leave the investigations to state’s attorneys general to run after the election to secure the next election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 07:02:03 AM
This is probably the worst time for such an investigation.  In theory, sure, looking into different types of possible voting fraud is a healthy exercise that must be gone through periodically; but right now, with millions of people believing that their preferred candidate, chosen by God to lead the country out of its previous morass, has just been robbed of victory due to criminal fraud by their atheist, or at least anti-christian enemies, bent on the destruction of their saviour, Trump.

Although that sounds ridiculous when one says it out loud, it's actually an accurate description of the current situation.

As an aside - court cases that require decisions in days, rather than months or years, are probably the worst ways of investigating questions of systemic problems in a complicated systems.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 09, 2020, 09:37:16 AM
Y-22,

“Leave the investigations to state’s attorneys general to run after the election to secure the next election.“

Yes, I think that you are correct about the results being decisive, but not because of “100” fraudulent votes. The lefties created conditions for election fraud for purposes of electoral expediency that are likely to now nip them in their glutes.

Conservatives do not want a repeat of election meddling two months from now in Georgia.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 10:02:59 AM
Ok

Biden won the popular vote by approx 4-1/2 million votes as of today. That lead is likely to increase as NY and CA complete their counts.

Biden is winning the EC count with 2 states still to be called. However, GA looks like it will go Biden and SC looks like it will go Trump. So it will most likely be a 306-229 win in the EC for Biden.

I all for Trump doing recounts in close states.  I think in many states if the results are within a certain percentage, the recount is automatic.  However, recounts very rarely change the outcomes when the difference is multiple thousands of votes.

Lets look at the speed of results.

Take three large states with Republican controlled state legislatures who allowed pre canvass of mail in votes: Texas, Florida and Ohio. All went for Trump. All had results the next day. All had large mail in voting and early voting and went for Trump.

Then we have PA, GA  and MI. All states that have Republican legislatures that did not allow early pre canvass of mail in votes. Those states took several days to almost a week to count the mail in ballots. If they had been allowed to pre canvass the ballots we most likely would have had these same results, but several days earlier

This whole fiasco was caused by Republican state legislatures creating this delay and the complaining about the delay.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 10:03:29 AM
It's weird - though predictable - that conservatives are once again falling for a "Gish gallop".  But it's sad that people who know better are using the tactic in order to once again manipulate conservatives.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: oldbrian on November 09, 2020, 10:06:02 AM
One of the results of this election:

I have never seen so many teens participating in the dialogue.  I assume a large part of that is due to social media being so prevalent now.  I am curious to see if this level of engagement continues beyond the Trump Era.

On the other hand, the teens are maybe only superficially engaged.  Mine just came stomping downstairs mouthing off about the 'f-ing liberals' (his parents) requiring him to go to school when he is tired.  And making him feed his pet.  :o

Because apparently education and personal responsibility are now values of those 'pansy liberals' , and good Trumpians should try to avoid them.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 09, 2020, 10:24:09 AM
Because apparently education and personal responsibility are now values of those 'pansy liberals' , and good Trumpians should try to avoid them.  ;D ;D ;D

As we all know, Trump is a good and faithful family man with solid Christian values and a record of military service to his nation, making him thus the ideal conservative candidate.

No, wait, he's in fact an irresponsible and immature manchild with no self-control. So, yes, obviously, every concept of responsibility, maturity, self-discripline etc that Trump abhors, will be now projected onto his opponents.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 09, 2020, 10:31:38 AM
Msquared,

“This whole fiasco was caused by Republican state legislatures creating this delay and the complaining about the delay.”

This is a fiasco, isn’t it, but it was caused by lax ballot security. Just own it, and live with the consequences. Investigations are going forward regardless of whining from the left.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 10:37:40 AM
Too bad I am not on the left. This was a planned outcome from the Republican legislatures to cause this chaos. One that would have been easily solved. Let the mail in ballots get pre canvassed.

Did you miss the part where three larger states did not have an issue since they did allow the pre canvass? 

It was not caused by lax security.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 10:56:23 AM
It was not caused by lax security.
People are still trying, really, really hard, in the absence of any evidence, to believe there was fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2020, 11:03:32 AM
His voter fraud commission tried that after the last election and turned up almost nothing. Now is the time to help the nation heal and concede. Trump has 0 evidence of massive vote fraud. Nothing large enough to flip multiple states. At this point investigating and finding 100 fraudulent votes in the nation is simply divisive. Leave the investigations to state’s attorneys general to run after the election to secure the next election.

From a legal standpoint, there is a huge difference between a commission investigating such things, and an active political candidate pursuing it.

In one of the quirks of the legal system, the Trump campaign can only aggressively pursue seeking these things so long as Trump remains a candidate. The moment Trump concedes, he ceases to be "an active candidate" and the various states can no longer be compelled by the courts to cooperate without needing to clear a much higher bar.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2020, 11:12:29 AM
I have never seen so many teens participating in the dialogue.  I assume a large part of that is due to social media being so prevalent now.  I am curious to see if this level of engagement continues beyond the Trump Era.

On the other hand, the teens are maybe only superficially engaged.  Mine just came stomping downstairs mouthing off about the 'f-ing liberals' (his parents) requiring him to go to school when he is tired.  And making him feed his pet.  :o

Because apparently education and personal responsibility are now values of those 'pansy liberals' , and good Trumpians should try to avoid them.  ;D ;D ;D

Are you sure your teen isn't a more extreme lefty? The more extreme socialists/communists don't like the Liberals either, although they've somewhat accepted them as a "necessary evil" under the American two party system. As it was 100 years ago, if the Communists could get rid of the Liberals too, they would.

It would also be more in keeping with communists, that simply by virtue or existing, they're entitled to stuff. Telling them no or making them work just means you support the broken system that needs to be overthrown.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 09, 2020, 12:46:28 PM
Msquared,

“Too bad I am not on the left.”

The Kasich “Medicare for all” right, is the left.

“This was a planned outcome from the Republican legislatures to cause this chaos. One that would have been easily solved. Let the mail in ballots get pre canvassed.“

Early vote result publication is a really bad idea. Is that what the issue is?

“Did you miss the part where three larger states did not have an issue since they did allow the pre canvass?”

Yes, I am busy working.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 01:06:39 PM
Your reading comprehension is lacking.

The states I mentioned that do the pre canvass are not counting the mail in ballots early. They are verifying the ballots.  Getting them ready to count, so that on election day, they can be counted during the day and the numbers can be reported in a timely fashion.

Never said I was for Medicare for all,  just that Kasich would have been better than Trump.  You keep making assumptions about me. And almost all of them are wrong.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 04:21:05 PM
More Republicans showing themselves to be completely without honour or morals: Republican Georgia Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler Call On Republican State Election Chief To Resign (http://)

Quote
Georgia's two Republican U.S. Senators are calling on the state's top election official — also a Republican — to resign Monday, after alleging "too many failures in Georgia elections this year" but without mentioning specifics to support their claims.

Sen. David Perdue and Sen. Kelly Loeffler issued a joint statement that blasted Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for allowing the management of Georgia elections to "become an embarrassment for our state."
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 04:23:21 PM
So they want him gone before the elections in Jan that they are both involved in?  I guess his only failure was not making sure Trump won (or that they won the first time around).
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 04:28:55 PM
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 09, 2020, 06:56:28 PM
Msquared,

“Never said I was for Medicare for all,  just that Kasich would have been better than Trump.  You keep making assumptions about me. And almost all of them are wrong.”

Just for clarity, you are “conservative”, and Kasich’s Medicare position was not a deal breaker for you?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 09, 2020, 07:05:17 PM
No because being multi dimensional voter, I do not let one issue decide for me.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 07:41:48 PM
It was only a matter of time... Trump's personal lawyer Bill Barr directs the US Justice Department to find ways to keep the president in power (https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1325958374471634946) (that is "investigate vote fraud")

Quote
The Hill
@thehill

JUST IN: Barr authorizes Justice Department to probe "substantial allegations" of voter fraud: report http://hill.cm/xuT1KF2 (http://hill.cm/xuT1KF2)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 09, 2020, 09:25:21 PM
Msquared,

Of all of the genuinely conservative “multidimensional“ Republican candidates (Fiorina, Cruz, Carson, Santorum, Paul, Huckabee, Jindal, and Walker) you settled for John Kasich, and his single-payer healthcare was a peripheral issue for you?

Do you see why I might question your self-identification?

Donald,

“It was only a matter of time... Trump's personal lawyer Bill Barr directs the US Justice Department to find ways to keep the president in power (that is "investigate vote fraud")”

Left-leaning Americans are justified in being concerned that Barr is on board. Involvement by the Justice Department is not a half-cocked decision by this particular AG, in spite of snide Canadian commentary to the contrary. Neither does Bill Barr shoot blanks.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2020, 09:38:28 PM
Neither does Bill Barr shoot blanks.
Obamagate anybody?  Citizenship question on the census? Lying about the use of armed forces to clear Lafayette square? Embarrassing himself over Roger Stone?  The man is basically an uber-partisan, continuously jamming semi-automatic rifle, with a misaligned scope and loaded with nothing but blanks.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 10, 2020, 12:22:06 AM
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html)

"At last, we know how badly photo voter ID is needed in North Carolina.

For years, Republicans in North Carolina have alleged that in-person fraudulent voting is widespread while Democrats have said it is non-existent. But no one knew for sure, leaving the two sides talking past each other on voter ID.

On Friday, the State Board of Elections released the results of an extensive, objective audit of the 2016 election. It found that 4,769,640 votes were cast in November and that one (1) would probably have been avoided with a voter ID law. One out of nearly 4.8 million."
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 10, 2020, 12:47:56 AM
Substantiated Voter Fraud:

Terri Lynn Rote
OUTCOME: CRIMINAL CONVICTION
Fraudulent Use of Absentee Ballots, Duplicate Voting
Terri Lynn Rote pleaded guilty to an election fraud charge stemming
from her attempt to vote twice in the 2016 presidential election. Rote
cited fears that the election was rigged to justify her attempt to cast
two absentee ballots for Donald Trump. She is awaiting sentencing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 10, 2020, 01:02:04 AM
Donald,

“Obamagate Obamagate anybody?

You believe that both Barry, and Uncle Joe were, unaware of, and uninvolved in:

- FISA abuse?
- Unpredicated counterespionage operations against Republican candidates before, during, and after the 2016 election by the FBI?
- Illegal unmasking by Barry appointees, including Uncle Joe, of American citizens?
- Agency head; Comey, Clapper, Brennan lying to Congress regarding surveillance of American citizens?

“Citizenship question on the census?“

And it is coming back, are you worried? I have never heard of sweeps to deport Canadians.

“Lying about the use of armed forces to clear Lafayette square?”

Are you talking about the  D.C. National Guard, or the Park Police? The former never took action against the crowd. Barr, and the Park Police, observed the crowd throwing “projectiles”. Barr authorized, and the police responded with pepper balls, about thirty minutes prior to the official curfew. You are probably confused regarding Barr’s denial of the use of tear gas.

“Embarrassing himself over Roger Stone?“

This could be considered damning to only a very niche subset of leftist wacko. It is you who are embarrassing yourself.

“The man is basically an uber-partisan...

No, he is basically a Bush Republican who is wearied by the crap left behind following Barry’s residence in the White House. I understand why that qualifies as “Uber” to people like you. Along with the rest of us, Barr rolls his eyes when Trump goes feral.

“... continuously jamming semi-automatic rifle, with a misaligned scope and loaded with nothing but blanks.“

So you are not concerned in the least by Barr taking action against election fraud, and we will not hear another word from you on the subject, correct?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 10, 2020, 01:16:59 AM
Kidv,

Just when you were beginning to sound reasonable you post this:

“Substantiated Voter Fraud:
Terri Lynn Rote
OUTCOME: CRIMINAL CONVICTION
Fraudulent Use of Absentee Ballots... “


She was sentenced to two years probation for mailing in an absentee ballot, and then personally delivering a second at her designated voting station.

She was probably given probation for being criminally stupid. I wish the pros were this dumb.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 08:51:13 AM
Trump on twitter.

Quote
WE WILL WIN!

Quote
WE ARE MAKING BIG PROGRESS. RESULTS START TO COME IN NEXT WEEK. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

The man is unhinged. He makes these kind of statements everyday with no follow through and no evidence.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 10, 2020, 10:30:26 AM
Y-22,

“The man is unhinged. He makes these kind of statements everyday with no follow through and no evidence.”

If you are right, then his efforts will come to nothing, correct?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 10:32:06 AM
They will come to nothing with respect to the election results. There will likely be other side effects on the country.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 10:40:27 AM
Y-22,

“The man is unhinged. He makes these kind of statements everyday with no follow through and no evidence.”

If you are right, then his efforts will come to nothing, correct?

To second m^2 his statements are going to deepen the political divide of the nation. I'm guessing posters like you will continue to claim fraud in this election without evidence for years because you believe this clown. There will never be any evidence but the conspiracy theories are going to live on and on. It's going to make it harder for Biden to govern. Trump and his acolytes are going to continue to be a plague on the nation.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 10:49:57 AM
Please note that almost all of Trumps legal actions in this part of the election have been thrown out due to lack of evidence. Not decided against them, but thrown out.   Claims that their observers were not allowed in the counting area were thrown out when their own lawyers admitted that there was a "non-zero" number of Republican observers in the counting area.

The one suite they won was to let observers get closer to the counters.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2020, 10:50:58 AM
More immediately, the hooligans ("Trump's Army") who tried to force their way into counting locations, banging on windows, yelling at people after getting inside, caused a fair bit of distress to the poor people sitting at desks and trying to count ballots, as well as those supervising.  There were volunteers that left counting places in tears, others who woke up crying days later... Trump's incitements had some pretty dramatic immediate effects on actual people, too.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 11:30:01 AM
Y-22,

“The man is unhinged. He makes these kind of statements everyday with no follow through and no evidence.”

If you are right, then his efforts will come to nothing, correct?

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933214639/trump-appointee-delays-biden-transition-process-citing-need-for-clear-winner (https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933214639/trump-appointee-delays-biden-transition-process-citing-need-for-clear-winner)

Quote
President-elect Joe Biden has begun planning his transition, naming a team of experts Monday to work on the coronavirus pandemic. But one thing Biden cannot do at this point is move into any government office space or receive government funding for the transition.

A key, if little-known Trump administration official has yet to determine formally that Biden won the election, holding up some crucial resources traditionally available to the president-elect.

Biden has also not yet started receiving daily intelligence briefs.

If Trump continues to delay it means a slower start to the Biden admin and a less effective government.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 10, 2020, 11:48:25 AM
Y-22,

“To second m^2 his statements are going to deepen the political divide of the nation.”

On that I guarantee you are correct, in retrospect would you still ignore concerns expressed by the right regarding ballot security?

“I'm guessing posters like you will continue to claim fraud in this election without evidence for years because you believe this clown.”

You keep asserting that people need Trump to tell them security waivers pushed by the left are harmful, step outside of your echo-chamber if you have an issue with problems that were self-inflicted.

“There will never be any evidence... “

So you say.

“... but the conspiracy theories are going to live on and on.”

I love your pejorative use of language, but yes, unless corrective measures are allowed to run their course, a significant portion of the country will deem Biden illegitimate. I suspect his legitimacy will also be compromised by any substantial findings of voter fraud. 

“It's going to make it harder for Biden to govern.”

Who could have seen that coming?

“Trump and his acolytes are going to continue to be a plague on the nation.“

You are talking about half of the “nation”.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 10, 2020, 12:22:53 PM
I love your pejorative use of language, but yes, unless corrective measures are allowed to run their course, a significant portion of the country will deem Biden illegitimate. I suspect his legitimacy will also be compromised by any substantial findings of voter fraud. 

I suspect that if Trump spoke in favour of a flat earth, you'd become a flat earther too.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 12:31:47 PM
noel

At what point will you agree that Trump is wasting time? How many law suites have to be filed and rejected?  So far Trump is 1 for 5 or 6? And the one he won was just to let the observers closer..

If Trump files all of these suites and almost all of them get tossed because no evidence was presented of large scale fraud, will you accept the results as valid?

And if he is so concerned about election security, why not file suites in states he won, like Texas, Florida or Ohio?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 12:39:58 PM
Noel you still aren't addressing my fundamental criticism of Trump. I think his lawsuits are petty, pointless, and doomed to failure but by themselves aren't that harmful to the nation. Its his repeated unsubstantiated claims of massive fraud, stolen elections, that he's going to win, that he won, etc that are deeply harmful to the nation. All of those claims are completely without merit or evidence to back them up. His lawsuits have almost been uniformly thrown out of court for lack of evidence. But there are going to be millions of his die hard supporters who are going to be spouting off conspiracy theories and diatribes about the stolen election for at least the next couple years if not the rest of their lives because they have faith in Trump and he's lying to them constantly.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2020, 12:41:05 PM
Begs the question if there is another motive behind the GOP contesting the results other then suspected fraud
What does the GOP gain?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 12:52:28 PM
Begs the question if there is another motive behind the GOP contesting the results other then suspected fraud
What does the GOP gain?

I think most of the old school GOP wants Trump to shut up and go away but they're afraid of alienating him and his voters and losing a primary in 2 or 4 years. So they are saying things like the president has the right to pursue whatever legal strategies he wants and we won't call the election until he's done. Certifications of state votes are going to start piling up over the next 2 weeks. It will be an interesting dance they are going to have to walk if Trump still refuses to accept the reality of his loss.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2020, 01:00:04 PM
Begs the question if there is another motive behind the GOP contesting the results other then suspected fraud
What does the GOP gain?

I think most of the old school GOP wants Trump to shut up and go away but they're afraid of alienating him and his voters and losing a primary in 2 or 4 years. So they are saying things like the president has the right to pursue whatever legal strategies he wants and we won't call the election until he's done. Certifications of state votes are going to start piling up over the next 2 weeks. It will be an interesting dance they are going to have to walk if Trump still refuses to accept the reality of his loss.

One wonders then how they are weighing the possible harm to their personal standing with the GOP base and the potential harm to the country.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 01:08:47 PM
“I'm guessing posters like you will continue to claim fraud in this election without evidence for years because you believe this clown.”

You keep asserting that people need Trump to tell them security waivers pushed by the left are harmful, step outside of your echo-chamber if you have an issue with problems that were self-inflicted.

What security waivers? Which states? What specific fraud issue are you concerned with?

Quote
“There will never be any evidence... “

So you say.

“... but the conspiracy theories are going to live on and on.”

I love your pejorative use of language, but yes, unless corrective measures are allowed to run their course, a significant portion of the country will deem Biden illegitimate. I suspect his legitimacy will also be compromised by any substantial findings of voter fraud.


There's zero evidence so far and Trump hasn't presented any to the American people or the courts. Put up or shut up at this point. But because of Trump's repeated false claims of fraud, of his winning, of the election being stolen, the conspiracy theories will live on among millions of his supporters for years or longer.

So far we have substantiated claims of two republicans trying to vote twice for Trump. I'm sure that's enough for you to call Biden illegitimate since the democrats are just so much smarter about how they commit their fraud. Show anything on the order of thousands of votes or even hundreds and I'll listen.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
A pretty in depth analysis of Trump's lawsuits  over the past week and their results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E&ab_channel=LegalEagle
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2020, 03:20:21 PM
Meanwhile....

Quote
Brad Raffensperger, whose office oversees Georgia's election, said: "Was there illegal voting? I am sure there was. And my office is investigating all of it.

"Does it rise to the numbers or margin necessary to change the outcome to where President Trump is, given Georgia's electoral votes? That is unlikely."

Quote
State election officials said claims that military ballots went missing are false, as are claims that ballots were dumped in Spalding County. Also false are allegations about ballot harvesting, double-counted ballots or inaccurate results. The lone elections lawsuit filed in Georgia, involving ballot handling in Chatham County, was quickly dismissed last week.

Mind you, these are all Republicans.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2020, 04:25:03 PM
Yes, but they're all never-Trumpers and RINOs.  They're worse.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 10, 2020, 07:00:04 PM
Aris,

“I suspect that if Trump spoke in favour of a flat earth, you'd become a flat earther too.”

You never fail to meet my expectations.

Y-22,

“What security waivers? Which states? What specific fraud issue are you concerned with?”

I have answered you below, but be let me state clearly that I am not soliciting an assessment of fraud adequate to change the final result, as stated way back in this thread. I believe that Biden will be installed as President. What I expect from pending suits, and investigations, is conclusive proof of widespread fraud, largely through individual initiative. There are highly motivated partisans who would go so far as to elect Biden, even if he is impeachable upon taking office. What could be done to make that happen, likely has been done.

I do not want it repeated in two months, two years, or the election that will replace Biden.

My concerns:

- Ballot harvesting (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia all statutorily condone the practice, but from a practical perspective, any State that allows unmonitored ballot drop-boxes is a harvester-friendly State.)

- Unsolicited ballot applications (Eleven States, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, Wyoming, South Dakota, Illinois, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, )

- Unsolicited ballots (Vermont, Nevada, District of Columbia, California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington, Oregon)

- Obstructed poll observer accommodation; Pennsylvania, and Michigan, due to local determination authority. I see this is as a blatant violation of civil rights. States are entitled to legislate rules for partisan observers, but not if there will be meaningfully effective partisan observers. (Four States have mandatory Federal election observers; Alaska, California, Louisiana, and New York, which are linked to racial civil rights enforcement. This number is down from thirteen a few years ago.)

- Unpurged voter rolls (all states are required to “maintain” voter rolls, but only Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia made the news for doing it. Even these States do not clear the rolls every election cycle.)

- Lack of voter identification requirements (California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.)

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 07:19:07 PM
You say installed but not elected?

So tens of thousands of voters in just a few states were all able to bypass the security that was in place to keep this from happening. And what evidence has been presented so far?  None. 

What is your cut off for calling it wide spread?  Will you agree it is not widespread if the number of fraudulent ballots in a state of 5 million is under 100?  Under 1,000?

If you think they will not find enough fraudulent ballots to over ride the results we have now, why not concede the race and get on with the transition?  Maybe it is because Trump really does not care about election security but about chaos in American politics.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 07:21:12 PM
Oh and I think the claims about poll observers have all been debunked in both PA and MI.  All of the lawsuits (I think) about that aspect have been tossed out due to lack of evidence (ie no evidence was supplied by the Trump admin when filing the suit).
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 10, 2020, 08:34:20 PM
And now the case in PA that had looked to show some promise is a hoax and fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-fabricated-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/10/99269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2020, 09:08:11 PM
And now the case in PA that had looked to show some promise is a hoax and fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-fabricated-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/10/99269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

Well, it's probably only because the Clintons had antifa threaten him. Couldn't be that he was a disgruntled worker, disciplined multiple times, wanting to get back at his boss after being prompted by O'Keefe. That wouldn't fit the "Fraud E'rwhere" narrative.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2020, 09:11:42 PM
And now the case in PA that had looked to show some promise is a hoax and fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-fabricated-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/10/99269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

And weirdly, Project Veritas(who broke the story in the first place) has the guy on film saying those reports are untrue and he has recanted nothing?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2020, 09:28:00 PM
Sounds like he should be able to get rich suing WaPo.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2020, 10:22:55 PM
- Ballot harvesting (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia all statutorily condone the practice, but from a practical perspective, any State that allows unmonitored ballot drop-boxes is a harvester-friendly State.)

Thanks for your reply with actual issues.

First note these aren't "security waivers" but just election laws in the given states you don't like.

As to ballot harvesting I'm not a particular fan and would be happy to see it eliminated. But the fraud associated with harvesting has more to do with voter suppression than voter fraud. Its a lot easier to canvas ballots from a neighborhood with a known political persuasion then Fahrenheit 451 them than to change votes.

I see no difference between drop boxes and any other method of returning a mail in ballot.

Quote
- Unsolicited ballot applications (Eleven States, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, Wyoming, South Dakota, Illinois, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, )

Not something that worries me much at all especially during a pandemic. Systematic fraud on the order than can affect thousands of ballots is extremely unlikely. This is reasonably easy to detect and prosecute as well when the real voter shows up to vote or change their address the police have the address of the person who requested the fraudulent ballot.

Quote
- Unsolicited ballots (Vermont, Nevada, District of Columbia, California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington, Oregon)

I'm not a huge fan of complete vote by mail elections. With good data management systems and public education I'm not too worried about wide spread systematic fraud arising from them. However the races where mail in voting can be shady is local elections. Small time operatives could probably run scams to buy votes or ballots. A corrupt sheriff could pressure people to vote for him. Basically just concerns about secrecy being violated in elections. But I can't see any large scale fraud or violations staying hidden or secret for long. But the races without a lot of interest and media attention are less secure.

Quote
- Obstructed poll observer accommodation; Pennsylvania, and Michigan, due to local determination authority. I see this is as a blatant violation of civil rights. States are entitled to legislate rules for partisan observers, but not if there will be meaningfully effective partisan observers. (Four States have mandatory Federal election observers; Alaska, California, Louisiana, and New York, which are linked to racial civil rights enforcement. This number is down from thirteen a few years ago.)

I think this is largely a nothing burger cooked up by Trump to inflame tensions. Many of the operations live streamed the process. Its one thing to try to sneak something past an observer but to put up cameras and live stream your shady activity that takes some nerve.

Quote
- Unpurged voter rolls (all states are required to “maintain” voter rolls, but only Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia made the news for doing it. Even these States do not clear the rolls every election cycle.)

All states maintain voter rolls and remove voters when they get information that they move, die, or otherwise become ineligible to vote. States that make news for purging voter rolls usually are simply removing voters for not having participated in one or more of the previous elections. Depending on the length of inactivity time purging voter rolls can be more about suppressing voters rather than maintaining accurate data.

Quote
- Lack of voter identification requirements (California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.)

Again a made up Republican boogey man. People running around all day voting at different polling locations as multiple people is just not a big threat to an election.


My preferences for voting are as follows.
To make voting easy we should have:
1) Nation wide month long early voting.
2) Election day is a national holiday.
3) Mobile early voting locations that can go to places like retirement homes where people may be less able to travel.

To make voting secure we should have:
1) Hand marked paper ballots.
2) Votes should be counted by scanning machines at the polling place.
3) All votes should then be rescanned by a separate air gapped system as an automatic recount of every race.
4) Risk limiting audits on individual machines.
5) Voting in person should be the norm. (Pandemic is an exception)
6) Any and all voting software should be opensource.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2020, 10:31:48 PM
As to ballot harvesting I'm not a particular fan and would be happy to see it eliminated. But the fraud associated with harvesting has more to do with voter suppression than voter fraud. Its a lot easier to canvas ballots from a neighborhood with a known political persuasion then Fahrenheit 451 them than to change votes.

If they're ballot harvesting, nothing is blocking them from being present while the person votes and bullying them into voting "the correct way" before sealing the ballot away in the envelop.

The 90 year old grandparent voting in an agreed upon balloting location with proper oversight is one thing. A bunch of 90 year olds having a partisan activist coming in to "help them vote" on the other hand? Huge red flag.

Or getting younger people who are mentally unfit to care for themselves registered to vote and "following up" by "helping them vote" later on. Perfectly legal in states that allow ballot harvesting, very ethically dubious.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 12:36:00 AM
Msquared,

“You say installed but not elected?”

Yes, I did.

“So tens of thousands of voters in just a few states were all able to bypass the security that was in place to keep this from happening.”

What security?

“And what evidence has been presented so far?  None.”

What investigation has there been so far?

“What is your cut off for calling it wide spread?  Will you agree it is not widespread if the number of fraudulent ballots in a state of 5 million is under 100?  Under 1,000?“

You are already negotiating the cutoff number for “widespread” fraud? What kind of confidence in your team is that?

“If you think they will not find enough fraudulent ballots to over ride the results we have now, why not concede the race and get on with the transition?“

I don’t want undermining of the voting process to matter only when it is successful, it will inevitably bleed into other elections where small percentages are more frequently making a big difference.

“Maybe it is because Trump really does not care about election security but about chaos.”

Right, Trump is enamored of chaos. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Trump believes he can win this?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 04:18:50 AM
I have seen no evidence that Republicans are not committing vote fraud at levels significant enough to sway elections - certainly no evidence that they are not doing so at levels dwarfing anything done by Democrats.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 11, 2020, 05:31:42 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like people are expecting evidence extremely quickly, like entirely too quickly?

Investigations into crimes take time.

I would ask why do people want to rush these important investigations but I think the question answers itself.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 06:36:18 AM
If there is no evidence, why should there be an investigation at all?  Why is it so important during this election cycle, as opposed to every other election cycle, to open investigations into things for which there is no evidence?

I think these questions answer themselves.

Note that this is different from hearing cases brought before courts (for which the Trump campaign, as of last count, is zero for twelve) or for requesting recounts, which is pretty standard.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 08:45:44 AM
noel

You sure know how to avoid answering a direct question.  I am not negotiating I am trying to get a better understanding of what you will accept.  I am confident that there is so little fraud as to be unmeasurable.  Trump, and his supporters, are the ones who have made allegations of massive fraud. Remember, they have to supply evidence and prove that. So for they have not been able to do any of that. It is all bluster.

Will you ever say Biden was elected? Ever admit Trump lost fair and square?  Or will you always think that this election was stolen.

I mean I will say that if Trump and his people supplied evidence of massive on the scale large enough to flip the states in question, I would say Biden stole the election and he should be removed from office.

There, does that satisfy you?  If you can prove the allegations, Biden should go and so should Harris (she would be tainted for the same reason).
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 11, 2020, 09:03:12 AM
Sometimes evidence is carefully concealed, even destroyed. It takes time to get to the bottom of things.

If it turns out there is no real there there and it's a big nothing burger, then going through the motions the way Trump is doing it is the best thing that could ever happen for helping most people accept the results of the election, something the Democrats never did for Trump himself by the way.

If we don't have a good and thorough investigation and take some time with it to get it right then people will see that and they will always have doubts. It's hard to find what you didn't look for very hard especially when it's been cleverly hidden by clever rascals.

Of course some will just wonder if the rascals weren't even more clever than the people trying to catch them but hopefully there won't be as many doubting Thomases as there would be with a cursory and perfunctory half-hearted and rushed investigation.

As an aside, I'm just watching Veep now and it's a lot better than I thought it would be. The intro captures the Harris campaign extraordinarily well, with her running for President with high hopes and then crashing and burning and acting like she's happy being Vice President. I liked The West Wing and House of Cards too but Veep seems to capture much of the essence of these political animals, maybe even better than the others. Julia really broke the Seinfeld curse there.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 09:07:42 AM
If there is no evidence, why should there be an investigation at all?  Why is it so important during this election cycle, as opposed to every other preceding election cycle, to open investigations into things for which there is, as you admit, no evidence?

Since there is the possibility of evidence having been hidden or destroyed in all other election cycles, why is it suddenly so important? 

I think these questions answer themselves.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 09:12:15 AM
And why only in the states that are in question?  Why not Texas and Florida and Ohio?  Maybe there was massive fraud on the part of Trump supporters in those states that we just have not looked for. I mean Trump even told them to vote twice.  I bet most of them did. I think we should invalidate all of the votes in those states until they can prove every single ballot was legitimate. Otherwise Trump would rule under a cloud and we would not want that.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 11, 2020, 09:24:35 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like people are expecting evidence extremely quickly, like entirely too quickly?

Investigations into crimes take time.

I would ask why do people want to rush these important investigations but I think the question answers itself.

I remember hearing the same stuff during the Kavanaugh hearings.  I'll say the same thing now that I did then. 




"Infiltrate the dealers, find the suppliers."


You're on a deadline.  Results have to be certified and electors have to meet and the country has to move forward.  The vast majority of Americans believe that Biden won.  Every day that L'Orange Crotte doesn't concede burns down a little bit more of the Republican party.  So far the lawsuits have been going nowhere.  There has been no evidence presented to any judge to back up any allegations.  Nothing.  You can't run up to a judge and say "stop the count, they're cheating", and when the judge asks you "what makes you say that?", your reply is "we need to investigate further".  That dog won't hunt. 

Speaking of which.  Did Stacy Abrams ever concede the Georgia governor's race? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 09:27:17 AM
Grant

do you mean the GA governor race where there was proven fraud on the Republican side?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 11, 2020, 09:48:25 AM
do you mean the GA governor race where there was proven fraud on the Republican side?

What proven fraud?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 09:56:51 AM
I thought there was some type of shenanigan's going on with that election.  Looking it up it was the Sec of State making calls on the election he was running in (conflict of interest). There were some lawsuits but eventually Abrams said that there was not enough disputed votes that the results would be changed.

Sounds familiar.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 11, 2020, 10:31:24 AM
Sounds familiar.

Exactly

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 11, 2020, 10:34:18 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like people are expecting evidence extremely quickly, like entirely too quickly?

Perhaps because Trump already claims it as a certainty that there was widespread fraud and that he won? Surely he must have evidence, and not just that but rather solid absolute proof to match his conviction?

Quote
Investigations into crimes take time.

Yes, especially when there's no crime, then it *really* takes time to investigate the non-existent crime. It's like investigating Bigfoot. You'll just have to keep investigating until you find something, and if you find nothing, well, just keep investigating. Forever and ever.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 10:35:21 AM
do you mean the GA governor race where there was proven fraud on the Republican side?

What proven fraud?

No proven fraud but more irregularities than anything Trump has demonstrated.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/georgia-voting-states-elections-1162134 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/georgia-voting-states-elections-1162134)

Quote
The problem: Georgians cast nearly 4 million ballots on Election Day, but about 160,000 of them showed no vote cast in the lieutenant governor race, about 4.3 percent of ballots. To election experts, this so-called “undervote” rate — when a race is left blank — is evidence either that Georgia voters were unusually apathetic about their lieutenant governor, or that something went wrong.

It’s normal for 1 to 2 percent of voters to skip a race or races on a ballot, election experts say. But besides being more than double that normal rate, the number of uncast votes in the lieutenant governor race also exceeded Duncan’s margin of victory over Amico, which was just 123,172 votes.

The puzzling numbers call new attention to Georgia’s paperless, touchscreen voting machines, which drew lawsuits in 2017 from election-integrity groups that say the machines are not secure and want the state to switch to paper ballots that can be audited.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 10:37:15 AM
There was no fraud (at least, nothing significant).

What there was, was your garden variety voter suppression, coincidentally overseen by one of the candidates who was at the time secretary of state.

It would be somewhat equivalent to the 2020 presidential election if a federal government agency, and not the states themselves, was responsible for registering voters and counting votes and also if Joe Biden was head of, and responsible for, that federal agency.

Can you imagine...?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: kidv on November 11, 2020, 10:48:05 AM
Georgia 2018:

The hard drives which maintained the election information were all wiped shortly after a lawsuit was filed, (maintained by GA secretary of state) (prior to the 2018 election)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/georgia-election-server-wiped-after-suit-filed (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/georgia-election-server-wiped-after-suit-filed)

edit: before the election instead of after
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 11:01:04 AM
And this is why Trump is zero for twelve in court, and why all these calls for investigation ring so hollow (Goldstein is Trump's lawyer in the Pennsylvania suit)

Quote
THE COURT: I understand.  I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking fora specific answer.  Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge, at present, no.

THE COURT: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?

MR GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 12:09:46 PM
If there is no evidence, why should there be an investigation at all?  Why is it so important during this election cycle, as opposed to every other election cycle, to open investigations into things for which there is no evidence?

I think these questions answer themselves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

Quote
Too many voters
Watch the turnout figures ‒ they can be a big giveaway.

You never get a 98% or 99% turnout in an honest election. You just don't.

Voting is compulsory in Gabon, but it is not enforced; even in Australia where it is enforced, where you can vote by post or online and can be fined for not voting, turnout only reaches 90-95%.

All of the battleground states had more than 95% of registered voters turnout to vote, Nevada has broken 125% voter turnout. Of course, they're rationalizing this one by pointing out the Registered Voter numbers in most states lag far behind eligible voters and invoking same-day registration to hand-wave the issue away...

Quote
A high turnout in specific areas
Even where the turnout is within the bounds of possibility, if the figure is wildly different from the turnout elsewhere, it serves as a warning.

Why would one particular area, or one individual polling station, have a 90% turnout, while most other areas register less than 70%?

Oh my. The BBC doesn't say?

Quote
More votes than ballot papers issued
When the polls close, and before they open the boxes, election officials normally have to go through a complicated and rather tedious process known as the reconciliation of ballots.

After they have counted how many ballot papers they received in the morning, they then need to count how many are left, and how many ‒ if any ‒ were torn or otherwise spoiled and had to be put aside.

So about those unsolicited mail in ballots using voter rolls which have never been properly purged?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 12:14:42 PM
So your evidence is an article about an African country 4 years ago?
Please provide the reference for the voter turn out in the battle ground states. I would like to check that.

Of course as you pointed out, states with same day registration could very easily have more people vote than were registered before the vote.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 12:22:13 PM
Will you ever say Biden was elected?

Once the Electoral college votes on December 14th, somebody will have been elected. In advance of that certified election election results, which the EC is supposed to honor make a decent stand in. But Certified election results haven't happened anywhere just yet, and certainly not enough for anyone to clear 270 EC votes on certified election results.

Projections say Biden is winning, current polling numbers indicate a Biden win--but again they're not certified.

In all reality a strong argument can be made that the election of the President isn't over until Congress ratifies the results, and that's in January.

If the EC and Congress say Biden is the next president, then he has won the election. Until then, there are some rather exceptional events happening in this election which do warrant further verification.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 12:30:54 PM
Quote
All of the battleground states had more than 95% of registered voters turnout to vote, Nevada has broken 125% voter turnout. Of course, they're rationalizing this one by pointing out the Registered Voter numbers in most states lag far behind eligible voters and invoking same-day registration to hand-wave the issue away...

Gonna have to give a reference for this. Are you comparing registered voters in 2018 to votes in 2020? That's stupid.

As Trump himself said (paraphrasing) I had the second highest popular vote in all time!
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2020, 12:33:51 PM
No there are not really any exceptional events. there have been claims but no evidence what so ever presented.   Even the election watchers Trump brought in from out of the country say it was a clean election.

Fine until the EC meets and voted, he is not elected. Did you use that term when Trump ran the first time?   My guess is noel will continue to say Biden will be installed, implying a defect in Biden's election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 12:37:18 PM
My guess is noel will continue to say Biden will be installed, implying a defect in Biden's election.

If he can take time away from 8kun and QAnon.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 02:53:31 PM
Quote
All of the battleground states had more than 95% of registered voters turnout to vote, Nevada has broken 125% voter turnout. Of course, they're rationalizing this one by pointing out the Registered Voter numbers in most states lag far behind eligible voters and invoking same-day registration to hand-wave the issue away...

Gonna have to give a reference for this. Are you comparing registered voters in 2018 to votes in 2020? That's stupid.

As Trump himself said (paraphrasing) I had the second highest popular vote in all time!

Yeah, did more digging elsewhere, those numbers were largely coming from 2018 registered voter counts.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 02:56:11 PM
Fine until the EC meets and voted, he is not elected. Did you use that term when Trump ran the first time?   My guess is noel will continue to say Biden will be installed, implying a defect in Biden's election.

I'm unaware of any claim that the voting mechanics themselves were under challenge by Dems in 2016? They were complaining about Russian Interference resulting in voters voting for Trump. Different thing.

So election outcome projections were uncontested, as such there was no reason to wait for starting the transition process.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 03:06:59 PM
Fine until the EC meets and voted, he is not elected. Did you use that term when Trump ran the first time?   My guess is noel will continue to say Biden will be installed, implying a defect in Biden's election.

I'm unaware of any claim that the voting mechanics themselves were under challenge by Dems in 2016? They were complaining about Russian Interference resulting in voters voting for Trump. Different thing.

So election outcome projections were uncontested, as such there was no reason to wait for starting the transition process.

The vote counts in the key states were just as close or closer in 2016. Clinton just didn't throw a temper tantrum because she lost and accuse Trump of cheating.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 03:16:31 PM
Fine until the EC meets and voted, he is not elected. Did you use that term when Trump ran the first time?   My guess is noel will continue to say Biden will be installed, implying a defect in Biden's election.

I'm unaware of any claim that the voting mechanics themselves were under challenge by Dems in 2016? They were complaining about Russian Interference resulting in voters voting for Trump. Different thing.

So election outcome projections were uncontested, as such there was no reason to wait for starting the transition process.

The vote counts in the key states were just as close or closer in 2016. Clinton just didn't throw a temper tantrum because she lost and accuse Trump of cheating.

She must be pretty pissed that Dems didn't take advantage of lax vote security to "install" her as President in 2016. At least she got a BOGO coupon to Comet Ping Pong.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 03:17:15 PM
Here's a fun prospect, but someone would have to find the right tools to see how Pennsylvania would turn out.

If the Penn legislature decided to apportion EC votes using the system Maine and Nebraska use, would Trump and Biden have an equal share, or would it hew one way or another?

If it favors Trump, they could go that route, but first they'd need Georgia and Arizona to flip in favor of Trump.

It if ties Trump/Biden(10 each), they'd still need to flip Georgia and Arizona, but it'd be a 269 EC vote tie, meaning the Republicans in the house get to decide the outcome.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 03:44:30 PM
Grant,

“I remember hearing the same stuff during the Kavanaugh hearings. I'll say the same thing now that I did then. Infiltrate the dealers, find the suppliers."

That is reasonably descriptive of what Trump is doing now. He is entitled to have his objections investigated, and litigated, just as Kavanaugh’s detractor had her public hearing.

“You're on a deadline. Results have to be certified and electors have to meet and the country has to move forward.”

I see no indication of foot-dragging by investigators.

“The vast majority of Americans believe that Biden won.  Every day that L'Orange Crotte doesn't concede burns down a little bit more of the Republican party.”

So, preservation of the Republican Party is your overriding concern? Interesting. I dare say that you are a minority within the party that you worry about. This election, and its aftermath, leave conservatives very well positioned for January 2021, November 2022, and November 2024. The intra-party fracturing, of which you are apparently representative, is so small as to be inconsequential.

We will hold the Senate, have gained seats in the House. Biden will not get the cabinet that he wants, nor will the “Green New Deal” see the light of day. The Supreme Court will not be packed, and only fifty stars will remain on Old Glory. Symmetrically rearranging fifty-two stars on a blue field, now there is a potential for national crisis.

Finally, election law has the best chance for overhaul now than at in any time in my memory as a result of COVID abuses. Issues such as.:

- Who decides election deadlines generally, or as we are now confronted with the issue in Pennsylvania, can the State Supreme Court usurp the constitutionally empowered legislature‘s authority in this matter?

- Do individual votes need threshold validation of voter identity?

- Is the State under obligation to issue properly vetted/requested ballots?

- Does ballot submission require safeguards curtailing undue influence?

“So far the lawsuits have been going nowhere. There has been no evidence presented to any judge to back up any allegations.  Nothing.  You can't run up to a judge and say ‘stop the count, they're cheating’,”

You can say: stop the count, a State Court has violated its constitution. The SCOTUS agreed to review the matter after the election. I think that decision was a mistake, but nothing stands in the way at this stage.

“... and when the judge asks you ‘what makes you say that?’, your reply is ‘we need to investigate further’. That dog won't hunt.“

“Infiltrate the dealers, find the suppliers.”

”Speaking of which.  Did Stacy Abrams ever concede the Georgia governor's race?” 

No, she expressly refused to concede, however; she did state that the “law allows no further viable remedy”. Trump is not there yet, and time remains for allowing the process to play out, irrespective of my expectations.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 04:01:55 PM
Here's a fun prospect, but someone would have to find the right tools to see how Pennsylvania would turn out.

If the Penn legislature decided to apportion EC votes using the system Maine and Nebraska use, would Trump and Biden have an equal share, or would it hew one way or another?

If it favors Trump, they could go that route, but first they'd need Georgia and Arizona to flip in favor of Trump.

It if ties Trump/Biden(10 each), they'd still need to flip Georgia and Arizona, but it'd be a 269 EC vote tie, meaning the Republicans in the house get to decide the outcome.

So a state legislature should change the apportionment of delegates after the election to favor Trump? I can't believe you guys are seriously proposing such ideas. Trump lost. Get over it. Republicans made up ground in the house, are likely holding the senate. Move on with divided government.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 04:56:43 PM
Quote
only fifty stars will remain on Old Glory. Symmetrically rearranging fifty-two stars on a blue field, now there is a potential for national crisis.

I thought they only needed one star to go next to the hammer and sickle... And slightly more seriously, symmetrical arrangement isn't so elusive.

51 = 3x9 + 3x8
52 = 4x7 + 4x6

You can work out any number by factoring. 51 = 17x3, 52= 2x2x13.

17x3 = 3(8+9)
4x13 = 4(6+7)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 05:07:24 PM
Drake,

I considered the 4*7/6 configuration, but it still is jarringly unbalanced:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/8feqte/stars_of_us_flag_with_5170_states/

If D,C., and Puerto Rico want to play, we need one or two more states to make it work.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 05:09:29 PM
Quote
In a statement, Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson - who together have formed the group Citizens for a Strong Democracy - said Mr Trump's legal claims "cannot and must not prevent the transition process from beginning".

That's a little hyperbolic. GWB didn't get started until much later, plus we're still talking recounts, including a hand recount in GA.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 05:10:14 PM
Drake,

I considered the 4*7/6 configuration, but it still is jarringly unbalanced:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/8feqte/stars_of_us_flag_with_5170_states/

If D,C., and Puerto Rico want to play, we need one or two more states to make it work.

ah, but it wouldn't be unbalanced at all if we did the sandwich configuration, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 05:17:26 PM
Drake,

“... ah, but it wouldn't be unbalanced at all if we did the sandwich configuration, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7.”

Just ugly.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 05:19:21 PM
Quote
In a statement, Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson - who together have formed the group Citizens for a Strong Democracy - said Mr Trump's legal claims "cannot and must not prevent the transition process from beginning".

That's a little hyperbolic. GWB didn't get started until much later, plus we're still talking recounts, including a hand recount in GA.

Correct, he didn't start until after the SCotUS ruling in December.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 11, 2020, 05:37:08 PM
Noel

"No, she expressly refused to concede, however; she did state that the “law allows no further viable remedy”. Trump is not there yet, and time remains for allowing the process to play out, irrespective of my expectations."

Perfect. Trump is only doing the exact same thing a Democrat did already and was lauded for. I see nothing wrong with it. I never complained about her refusal to concede. If she thinks things were hinky in the election, and people have already pointed out that there were some suspicious irregularities, then she did the right thing in refusing to concede but allowing the peaceful transfer of power anyway after all legal avenues had been explored and resulted in dead ends. Same for Trump. I see that as a perfectly acceptable result.

We can have a peaceful transition of power and Biden will be the duly elected President. There is no need for Trump to concede anything. And again, the Democrats never did. On the contrary, they impeached him for his "crime" of winning the election.

Also, we see reports in the media about how various organizations such as media outlets have "called the election for Biden". They can call whatever they want. It's irrelevant. There is a process in place and after it plays out then we will have our President. Until then, it's just people talking. Words are wind.

I agree with Deamon: "Once the Electoral college votes on December 14th, somebody will have been elected." That's who calls the election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 05:58:08 PM
Perfect. Trump is only doing the exact same thing a Democrat did already and was lauded for. I see nothing wrong with it. I never complained about her refusal to concede. If she thinks things were hinky in the election, and people have already pointed out that there were some suspicious irregularities, then she did the right thing in refusing to concede but allowing the peaceful transfer of power anyway after all legal avenues had been explored and resulted in dead ends. Same for Trump. I see that as a perfectly acceptable result.

What hinky has gone on in this election? How are 5 or 6 states and all their election managers (democrats and republicans) all in on it?

Trump as a lame duck is cleaning house and appointing loyalist at the head of the defense department. The head of the GAO has refused to give Biden access to funds to make a transition smooth. Biden isn't receiving intelligence briefings. The secretary of state said we're transitioning into a second Trump term. Let's just say I'm concerned by his actions. As should the rest of the country. He repeatedly claims victory or massive fraud and provides bupkis for evidence. His words and actions have a great deal of potential to lead to violence.

Quote
We can have a peaceful transition of power and Biden will be the duly elected President. There is no need for Trump to concede anything. And again, the Democrats never did. On the contrary, they impeached him for his "crime" of winning the election.

Let's hope the transition is still peaceful. Trump's inability to accept reality is scary.

Hilary conceded. The democrats impeached Trump for using the office of president to try to coerce a foreign government to dig up or manufacture dirt on Biden.

Quote
Also, we see reports in the media about how various organizations such as media outlets have "called the election for Biden". They can call whatever they want. It's irrelevant. There is a process in place and after it plays out then we will have our President. Until then, it's just people talking. Words are wind.

I agree with Deamon: "Once the Electoral college votes on December 14th, somebody will have been elected." That's who calls the election.

And if Trump is still disputing the election after that? You have to see that its a bad precedent for elections to end this way when there is no evidence of wrong doing, particularly nothing on the scale that could change the outcome. I'm pretty sure we've already reached the point that despite no evidence ever surfacing of wide spread voter fraud we're going to be hearing about a stolen election for years. I think Trump will run again in 2024.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 11, 2020, 06:01:23 PM
The President of Mexico gets it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/were-not-colony-mexican-president-190206185.html

"We can't make any kind of recognition of a government that is not yet legally and legitimately constituted," he told a news conference. "It's not up to us, that's interventionism."

We have a process and we need to let it play out.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 06:03:54 PM
Cherry,

“We can have a peaceful transition of power and Biden will be the duly elected President. There is no need for Trump to concede anything. And again, the Democrats never did. On the contrary, they impeached him for his "crime" of winning the election.”

It was actually much worse than that. Unlike Trump, Barry corrupted the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Biden did/will not have to contend with pre-election, transitional, or post-inaugural spying on his organization. Nor will Biden be seeing an unsubstantiated “dossier” funded by the RNC, compiled by a foreign agent, employed as a predicate for a faux counter intelligence operation, and culminated in a sham impeachment.

Retaining the House will immunize him from “impeachment”, but not from the discredit attached to documentation disclosed by his “family business associates”. As for his call for cross-party/national unification and reconciliation; hear this Uncle Joe, WE ARE THE RESISTANCE.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 06:31:41 PM
Biden did/will not have to contend with pre-election, transitional, or post-inaugural spying on his organization.

The Biden campaign and transition team probably won't be stupid enough to take random meetings with people closely associated with the CCP.

However, if you think Trump ISN'T trying to use the national security apparatus to spy on people he believes are stealing the election from him, people who are owned by China and the Ukraine, people who are bent on the destruction of America itself? Well, you're giving him more credit than he deserves. Would the professionals in those organizations go along with it? More than likely. I'll patiently wait until we find out that happened and you find some way to excuse it.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 07:23:28 PM
Drake,

“The Biden campaign and transition team probably won't be stupid enough to take random meetings with people closely associated with the CCP.“

Are you just confused? Joseph Mifsud is a Maltese academic, and Comey entrapment bait, with no connections to the CCP. Papadopoulos was a small player exploited under FISA to expand FBI surveillance requests. Or are you talking about General Flynn, who was fully entitled to talk with Sergey I. Kislyak, about U.S. sanctions on Russia, or any other foreign counterpart that he deemed appropriate.

“However, if you think Trump ISN'T trying to use the national security apparatus to spy on people he believes are stealing the election from him, people who are owned by China and the Ukraine, people who are bent on the destruction of America itself? Well, you're giving him more credit than he deserves.”

Trump is a blunt-force instrument. If he wants an indictment, or investigation, he just goes to Twitter. The sneaky maneuvering characteristic of a “community organizer” mentality is as alien to Donald, as a real job is to Barry.

“Would the professionals in those organizations go along with it? More than likely. I'll patiently wait until we find out that happened and you find some way to excuse it.“

Your “patience” will be severely tried. Pretty much everything Trump does politically makes headlines within five minutes of his decision. Take, for example, his move to fire four civilian appointees at the Pentagon yesterday. To read CNN’s account, one would think that he had decapitated our defense capacity.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2020, 07:26:40 PM
Even Trump's own lawyers are embarrassed about the weakness of their own evidence: Arizona judge denies Trump team request to seal evidence in vote-counting suit (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/az-judge-denies-trump-team-request-for-evidence-in-suit-over-maricopa-county-votes)

Quote
An Arizona Superior Court judge has denied a request by President Trump's reelection team to seal evidence in a lawsuit alleging poll workers in Maricopa County "incorrectly rejected" Election Day votes.

Judge Daniel Kiley agreed with election officials' assertion that the public “has a right to know how flimsy [the] Plaintiffs’ evidence actually is.”

According to the Arizona Republic, the Trump campaign claimed workers had disregarded procedure and that thousands of ballots could have been left uncounted or deemed "overvotes," but Maricopa officials estimated Monday that only 180 ballots were potentially in jeopardy.

Apparently, Trump's team wants the publicity of having brought the suit, and of feeding into the BS fraud narrative, without the humiliation of letting the public see just how unsupported are the actual claims.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2020, 08:34:57 PM
Drake,

“The Biden campaign and transition team probably won't be stupid enough to take random meetings with people closely associated with the CCP.“

Are you just confused? Joseph Mifsud is a Maltese academic, and Comey entrapment bait, with no connections to the CCP. Papadopoulos was a small player exploited under FISA to expand FBI surveillance requests. Or are you talking about General Flynn, who was fully entitled to talk with Sergey I. Kislyak, about U.S. sanctions on Russia, or any other foreign counterpart that he deemed appropriate.

As you ought to well know, surveillance started with Carter Page. He met with Russian officials during the campaign. There was never evidence gathered to show that he was working for them, but that surveillance never starts if he never met with them. That's why you do the surveillance, to determine the nature of the relationship.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 09:36:33 PM
Drake,

“As you ought to well know, surveillance started with Carter Page. He met with Russian officials during the campaign.”

Dr. Carter Page, Annapolis graduate, ex-naval officer, Eagle Scout, altar boy, and generally upstanding American, is the last person that you should want to accuse.

“There was never evidence gathered to show that he was working for them, but that surveillance never starts if he never met with them. That's why you do the surveillance, to determine the nature of the relationship.”

Page was a confidential CIA source, as he stated to the FBI official in charge of FISA applications, Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith was subsequently instructed to ask the CIA again about Page’s relationship with the agency. He was again informed by email that Page was, in fact, working for them; yet Clinesmith changed the CIA email response to describe Page as ”not working” for it. Clinesmith was then criminally referred by Justice Department Inspector Horowitz for falsifying evidence in a FISA application, and charged in the course of John Durham’s criminal probe. Clinesmith plead guilty.

I should add that investigators also found numerous messages against Trump on Clinesmith’s social media accounts, including one declaring "vive le resistance” after Trump won.  Stories like this can’t be made up.

Just another day in the Obama FBI.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: LetterRip on November 11, 2020, 10:00:12 PM
Being a 'confidential source' doesn't mean he is exempt from being investigated or prosecuted for engaging in illegal activity.

Claims of him being a confidential source are irrelevant unless he was specifically tasked with the illegal behaviour he appeared to be engaged in.


Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 10:05:15 PM
Drake,

“As you ought to well know, surveillance started with Carter Page. He met with Russian officials during the campaign.”

Dr. Carter Page, Annapolis graduate, ex-naval officer, Eagle Scout, altar boy, and generally upstanding American, is the last person that you should want to accuse.

“There was never evidence gathered to show that he was working for them, but that surveillance never starts if he never met with them. That's why you do the surveillance, to determine the nature of the relationship.”

Page was a confidential CIA source, as he stated to the FBI official in charge of FISA applications, Kevin Clinesmith.

Was Page a current informant? Or did his relationship with the CIA end in 2013 when he was involved in a criminal case (as source? witness? double agent?) with two Russian spies.

Or was Page spying on the Trump campaign for the CIA? I'm sure Obama is to blame either way.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2020, 10:10:59 PM
Trump:
Quote
...Therefore, I easily win both states.

The ... is all unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations followed by throw out votes for Biden.

Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 11, 2020, 10:39:47 PM
L.R.,

“Being a 'confidential source' doesn't mean he is exempt from being investigated or prosecuted for engaging in illegal activity.”

True enough; but when the CIA told Clinesmith, in the context of a FISA warrant application inquiry, that Page was working for them, one would think that their clear statement would carry some weight. Clinesmith obviously believed that it did, because he subsequently falsified the CIA email, and obtained a counter-intelligence investigation warrant based upon a piece of fabricated evidence.

Come on guys, stop with the BHO Pom-poms.

“Claims of him being a confidential source are irrelevant unless he was specifically tasked with the illegal behaviour he appeared to be engaged in.“

So, the CIA could not figure that out, and you just did?

Y-22,

“Was Page a current informant? Or did his relationship with the CIA end in 2013 when he was involved in a criminal case (as source? witness? double agent?) with two Russian spies.”

The 2016 CIA email identified Page as “working” for them (present tense). Page had informed the FBI as far back as June 13, 2013 that he was in contact with Victor Podobnyy, whom he believed to be a junior attaché at the Russian consulate in New York, and was advising on energy investments.

“Or was Page spying on the Trump campaign for the CIA? I'm sure Obama is to blame either way.“

See, this is why I have full confidence in the Left’s capacity for expansive election fraud. There is a rabid devotion to ideological expediency that no fact-set will overcome.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 11:21:32 PM
Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

Courts dismissing the cases would be reasonably sufficient.

But the operative part of courts doing so, not the main stream media or Democratic Operatives.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 11, 2020, 11:39:24 PM
The ... is all unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations followed by throw out votes for Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html

Headline:
The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud

Nice, they called them, but didn't necessarily speak with them.

Teaser:
Quote
The president and his allies have baselessly claimed that rampant voter fraud stole victory from him. Officials contacted by The Times said that there were no irregularities that affected the outcome.

Wait, no evidence of "Voter Fraud" but there might have been... It just didn't affect the outcome? But that means "no fraud" is a lie too. But let us venture further.

Quote
“Kansas did not experience any widespread, systematic issues with voter fraud, intimidation, irregularities or voting problems,” a spokeswoman for Scott Schwab, the Republican secretary of state in Kansas, said in an email Tuesday. “We are very pleased with how the election has gone up to this point.”

Sorry NYT, I don't think that quote means what you want it to mean. Please define "widespread" and "systematic issues" in this context?

And speaking of no "evidence of voter fraud" once more:
Quote
Some states described small problems common to all elections, which they said they were addressing: a few instances of illegal or double voting, some technical glitches and some minor errors in math. Officials in all states are conducting their own review of the voting — a standard component of the certification process.

Nothing to see here citizen, move along.

Now as to whether or not there was enough fraud or other improper conduct to alter the outcome of the election, we'll have to leave that up to the courts. I do like the idea of auditing the voter rolls, but we'll see what happens.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 12, 2020, 07:59:44 AM
Well since I think over a dozen of the law suits Trumps lawyers have filed have been thrown out of court already, is that good start.

The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 08:15:20 AM
Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

Courts dismissing the cases would be reasonably sufficient.

But the operative part of courts doing so, not the main stream media or Democratic Operatives.

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence? So far Trump is striking out on anything that impacts the count. His team tried to get a case sealed in Arizona probably because they don't have the evidence and it would only impact around 500 votes. Ask yourself why Trump's legal team wants the court records sealed. Why isn't he trying to shine light on the situation? Why would he want to file a bunch of lawsuits and try to keep the contents of them secret? Could it be he likes the message of we're suing but hates when the public gets to see the absolute lack of anything credible they can present to the courts.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 12, 2020, 09:01:00 AM

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence?

All of them. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 09:03:33 AM

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence?

All of them.

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 09:13:27 AM
Quote
Some states described small problems common to all elections, which they said they were addressing: a few instances of illegal or double voting, some technical glitches and some minor errors in math. Officials in all states are conducting their own review of the voting — a standard component of the certification process.

Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
You're better than this.

You know why election officials and the media always use words like "widespread", "significant" and "likely to affect the outcome" - because in an election where more than 150,000,000 votes were cast for president, it is impossible for there not to have been any illegal activity whatsoever.  In a population that size, of course there are people who will try to cheat.  And stupid people, who hear about Johnny who got caught voting for his dead grandfather, would make hay out of such findings - anybody caught saying "zero fraud" would then be humiliated and used as an example of media bias.  "See?" they would say, sarcastically. "Nothing to see here.  Move along."


yossarian22c, I think Grant is being humorous...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 12, 2020, 09:38:04 AM

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

I don't need patience.  After December 14th, the Electoral College will vote and the entire thing will be moot.  They can keep throwing lawsuits, but the election will be over.  I don't need patience because it's not my job to decide the election.  Every lawsuit should be heard. 

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 10:28:22 AM

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

I don't need patience.  After December 14th, the Electoral College will vote and the entire thing will be moot.  They can keep throwing lawsuits, but the election will be over.  I don't need patience because it's not my job to decide the election.  Every lawsuit should be heard.

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan? 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 10:39:30 AM
Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

Maybe, we've already seen people here post that Pennsylvania and other states Biden narrowly won should switch and allocate their delegates by CD the same way Maine and Nebraska do. If you do that just in the states Biden won then magically Trump wins.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 10:41:28 AM
Scary

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 10:44:01 AM
RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday. I also counted him out in 2016. He has a habit of proving me wrong.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 10:49:36 AM
RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday. I also counted him out in 2016. He has a habit of proving me wrong.

I fear 'legally' will be in the eyes of the beholder
Trump has a habit of creating the conditions that he then uses for his own gain. In this case creating the distrust in the process, eliminating those who might stand up against him and then taking what he wants.

Be careful what you wish for
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 11:04:26 AM
RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday.

What happened yesterday to change your mind?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 11:09:32 AM
The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud. Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines. "The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud"
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 11:12:52 AM
The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You can't make fun of them for reporting on instances of the limited problems, then claiming they didn't report on problems.  Well, you can, but again, you should be better than that.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 11:13:36 AM
Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

1876, Congress can invalidate Electoral votes from any state for any reason so long as a majority agrees. Then if a majority of EC votes (before the deletions by congress) no longer exists, Congress votes on PotUS.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You missed a part:

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 11:20:12 AM
The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud. Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines. "The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud"

I'll accept that there are 100 fraudulent votes nationwide without any evidence to back that up. So 1 in a million votes is someone voting in two states, non-citizen voting, an impersonation vote, or some other way to game the system. I'll further accept that 1 in a 100,000 votes was misread by a tabulator and there are 1,500 votes across the nation that were misallocated.

Show me where there is a systematic or widespread fraud effort that only helps Biden. With 150,000,000 votes some will be miscounted or a few ineligible votes will get through. Don't use the fact that the NYT slightly oversold their headline to mean anything nefarious is going on behind the scenes.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 12, 2020, 11:35:55 AM

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

I don't believe so.  Regardless, the electors will elect who they said they were going to elect.  It's the state legislatures that could get involved if they don't certify results and appoint the electors that were on the ballots. 

The biggest danger is that millions of Americans are running around in January and February believing that the election was stolen and either shooting at people or causing other mischief. 

I honestly don't think there is a "game plan".  The Trump Administration very rarely had plans at all.  If anything, their plan is to make as much money as possible before having to leave the Whitehouse. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 11:52:35 AM
I don't believe so.  Regardless, the electors will elect who they said they were going to elect.  It's the state legislatures that could get involved if they don't certify results and appoint the electors that were on the ballots. 

The biggest danger is that millions of Americans are running around in January and February believing that the election was stolen and either shooting at people or causing other mischief.

The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

Congressionally, it is presumed that there will be a Democrat majority in the House, which makes federal level Congressional intervention highly unlikely in the first place. Which is even before we get into their also having to realize that intervening in such a manner is extremely dangerous in regards to 2022(and quite possibly later), and the other more lasting implications of such an act going forward.

As such, if the courts don't support changing the outcome, it isn't happening. Taking that as a given, that places a hard deadline of when the EC is legally required to vote, give or take a couple weeks. (I could conceive of a potential delay in voting being ordered, but nothing that delays the process beyond when the next Congress convenes.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 12, 2020, 12:05:35 PM
TheDeamon, do you think when people say "voter fraud" they mean isolated incidences of double-voting, non-resident votes, non-citizen votes, or other types of irregularities that only affect the result in the closest of races ? Or do they say "voter fraud"  meaning widespread, systematic, and/or organized fraud that can change the results of elections even when there's a respectable margin of legitimate votes for the side that would win except for fraud? It seems more dishonest to insist on the former for accuracy's sake when politicians invoke the latter to justify suppressing votes.

I find the conservatives' habit of refusing to understand anything but the nominative meanings of words to be a great barrier to communication.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 12:07:33 PM
The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 12:11:48 PM
The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

I suspect that is what is going happen.
If such a thing does happen what would that say about American version of democracy.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 12:20:26 PM
The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

I suspect that is what is going happen.
If such a thing does happen what would that say about American version of democracy.

Its broken and democracy in America is dying or dead. Because winning at any cost will have be cemented.

We're about to see the worst round of gerrymandering ever. The technology and data to draw really advantageous maps exists and the SC has given state legislatures the green light to politically gerrymander as much as their state courts will allow. Republicans did good in state legislatures, they're likely to turn that into a even bigger advantage in 2022. Democratic controlled states have been more reluctant to gerrymander or have passed non partisan commissions that redraw maps. But republicans tend to hold the state legislatures in more of the swing type states where gerrymandering can sway the results the most.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 12, 2020, 12:23:47 PM
Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

The election the GOP has to worry about is in January, anyways. They don't want to risk being punished by voters for obviously being undemocratic. It's like the Vice President gambit that keeps getting suggested. While having the President resign two years in so that the VP gets two elections with the incumbency advantage sounds like a neat trick, the risk that the electorate will get pissy about it means they won't actually try it.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 12:24:39 PM
Should American democracy die?
What should replace it?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 12, 2020, 12:27:49 PM
Trump would rather break the game than loose.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 12:34:07 PM
Trump would rather break the game than loose.

I suspect that many of the 70 million supporters/followers support that

I'm not sure why when all in all we live in a time were we have much more to be grateful for then upset about.
I think we ask for to much from life and it makes us stupid. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 12:50:31 PM
Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

If congress refuses enough electors for someone to have a majority then the election goes to the house but they vote by state delegation which again favors the Republicans. Its all kinds of a Hail Mary play, but I can see them claiming enough of a following the rules constitutional fig leaf that they may try if Trump is pushing hard enough and is able to sow enough doubt among enough of his following.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 12:54:09 PM
Should American democracy die?
What should replace it?

Trump. Until he dies. If he somehow convinces the Republicans to back him in whatever gambit he throws out, they won't have the will to oppose a third and fourth term for him. There will still be some nod to elections, but the freedom of those elections will be constrained. Just look at Turkey, Poland, and Hong Kong for how democracy can be eroded.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 12, 2020, 01:06:57 PM
Quote
Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

What you forget from your journalism class in Junior High (do they still teach that in JH?  :-\), is that headlines are NOT supposed to be accurate summaries of the articles.  They are supposed to be short and attention-grabbing, so the reader is drawn in to read the actual article.

While the difference between "no voter fraud" and "no significant voter fraud" is significant for the article itself, it is something that I could easily see an editor drop in the headline for the sake of brevity.  The lack of that one word doesn't change the fact that there has not been enough voter fraud shown to change the election results, as some Republican liars have been insisting.  To say that this proves that the newspaper is trying to fool its readers shows a grasping of straws. 

This is just another example of why I'm finding it harder and harder to take Republican criticisms seriously.  A newspaper headline that isn't 100% accurate (although the article is) supposedly shows that Liberals are trying to lie to us.  But a President declaring that he won the election because of voter fraud (that hasn't been shown) is worth considering as a reasonable assertion.  ::)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 12, 2020, 01:22:55 PM
In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, everybody:

"Chill out, man"
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 01:25:14 PM
While the difference between "no voter fraud" and "no significant voter fraud" is significant for the article itself, it is something that I could easily see an editor drop in the headline for the sake of brevity. 
Don't even get me started on the ambiguous, and usually accidental, use of homonyms, especially verb/noun homonyms, in headlines.  Or dropping prepositions - I could scream.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 01:26:49 PM
In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, everybody:

"Chill out, man"

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 12, 2020, 01:44:09 PM

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

I dunno, dude.  I think it has some to do with the fact that on some levels, different people just have different values, and we live in an age of eclecticism.  Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

The other half of it is, I believe, that people want to subscribe the having of different values and different beliefs to sinister motives.  Democrats are crooked.  Republicans are crooked.  Catholics are crooked.  Jews are crooked.  Mexicans are crooked.  All that jazz. 

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship.

Was the architect  of the "matrix" correct? Humanity can't handle prosperity and needs a certain amount of opposition to 'feel' engaged with life?

What's happening now feels different to me and I wonder if our current communication technology isn't exasperating the tendency towards tribalism.
Confirmation bias, Seeing the world as we are not as it is begs the question. how do we see ourselves.

One of my hopes with a Biden Presidency was that just maybe we get a break from the constant political tweet intended to grab our attention. We need space to look away.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2020, 02:03:48 PM
I think it has some to do with the fact that on some levels, different people just have different values, and we live in an age of eclecticism.

You know what? I think its the opposite. I think in the past it was understood that people are essentially a wild beast and that there are all sorts. Back in Shakespeare's time I think the notion of 'crazy' was barely even a thing compared to how we now think of it. Now, if someone breaks into tears 'for no reason' they are crazy. Back then you could kill a guy and it was like, hey, he's a wild one. I think people have actually become so homogenized nowadays that they can scarcely tolerate people who are different. And I think this has pronounced effects in situations where there are, as you say, real differences between people.

Quote
Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

You know, in some respects this must obviously be correct. 600 years ago you wouldn't have gotten much dissent in proposing the Christian worldview or cosmic understanding. But is that really the sort of personalized view of the world people carry with them day in, day out? You would think it would be, actually, but I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I suspect that even within a 'Christian society' there was massive variation in personal comportment, views on people, on how to do business, on what we would now call politeness, and so forth. Now someone cuts a line and people scream; it's just a given. Back then I don't really know for sure but I suspect that there was more of an understanding that people are not something you can control so easily. From this standpoint any deviation from what we'd now call civility or normality would be just another instance of the breadth of human variety. Now we have names for each type of deviation of psychological normality; back then it was just people being people. Now we have names for different types or orientations of sexuality; back then there was just sexuality. People were sexual, they liked sexual things. Now there are categories. So yes it means we know more, but also means in a way we demand much more in certain categories of life. I think intolerance of any divergence of opinion is not a symptom of being heterogenous, but of being homogenous. The illusion is that now we are so open to diversity, but actually I think 2020 must be the pinnacle of intolerance to diversity in recent human history. Back in Chesterton's day disagreement through 'wars of letters' was commonplace, even journalistically celebrated. Now people will get offended if you tell them you disagree. That's a new thing, and not one born of being more diverse in nature; I suspect it's born of being less diverse in thought.

That's just my current guess at the subject, though.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You missed a part:

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.
.

Rewrite the headline. If they wrote "isolated cases of voter fraud had no impact on election results" would that make any difference?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 12, 2020, 02:06:48 PM
Was the architect  of the "matrix" correct? Humanity can't handle prosperity and needs a certain amount of opposition to 'feel' engaged with life?

Nice reference! Even the garden of Eden story tells a similar idea, that people wouldn't stand for being told how to be perfect, and needed to muck about to an extent just an expression of will. I think a perfect demonstration for this need can be found in MMORPG landscapes, where we can see the sorts of mentalities that present themselves, including banding together, forming cartels, doing things for fun, breaking the system just to prove you can, and of course trying to conquer the universe. These really are the things people do; basically you name it someone wants to do it, with the priority being that they chose to do it. As as think the Merovingian says (or is it the Oracle), it all comes down to choice.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 12, 2020, 02:07:13 PM
I've got a feeling that what's going to end up happening is that some Republicans will try to use the hoax of massive voter fraud to undermine the integrity of the election and by extension the authority of incoming President Biden and refer to him as an illegitimate President. It may be that some of them even believe it but for most of them it will just be a form of political warfare to grasp at power or at least keep it from the opposition even in the face of a lost election. Exactly like what the Democrats did to Trump with their Russian collusion hoax.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 02:50:55 PM
TheDeamon, do you think when people say "voter fraud" they mean isolated incidences of double-voting, non-resident votes, non-citizen votes, or other types of irregularities that only affect the result in the closest of races ? Or do they say "voter fraud"  meaning widespread, systematic, and/or organized fraud that can change the results of elections even when there's a respectable margin of legitimate votes for the side that would win except for fraud? It seems more dishonest to insist on the former for accuracy's sake when politicians invoke the latter to justify suppressing votes.

I find the conservatives' habit of refusing to understand anything but the nominative meanings of words to be a great barrier to communication.

I'm suspicious that there was likely a significant "Stand Alone Complex" going on with regards to voter fraud/abuse in this election cycle. Quite likely enough to swing Georgia for instance, but the others is a lot more dubious.

If you're dealing with SAC scenarios, which incidentally is also something AntiFa is deliberately structured to resemble(but is not actually such a thing--as it lacks the "independent and in isolation" aspect). Trying to call those activities "systemic" or even "organized" is problematic at best, as to "widespread" that's another matter, but depending on how it was done, potentially very hard to detect let alone prove, especially with all of the opportunities for such abuses which were created this year.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 02:59:36 PM
Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

Problem is if congress doesn't recognize those electors and no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, it goes to the state delegations in the House... Which the Republicans control, and as the vote is by delegation, they have some degree of cover, although Republicans in general would take the heat regardless of who Congress selects at that point.

Quote
The election the GOP has to worry about is in January, anyways. They don't want to risk being punished by voters for obviously being undemocratic. It's like the Vice President gambit that keeps getting suggested. While having the President resign two years in so that the VP gets two elections with the incumbency advantage sounds like a neat trick, the risk that the electorate will get pissy about it means they won't actually try it.

If the state legislatures decide to suddenly become believers in congressional district EC seat allocations(something I'd be okay with if it remains permanent) and that enables Trump to reclaim the EC win, it leaves Republicans in Congress in a bind. If they support Biden, they get hammered in the Primaries by upset voters. If they support Trump, they risk being hammered by upset Biden voters in the next general election. In either case they lose. Still inclined to suspect the state legislatures are going to be gutless in any case and stay out of it.. Letting the courts take the heat instead.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 03:02:21 PM
Quote
Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.
.

Rewrite the headline. If they wrote "isolated cases of voter fraud had no impact on election results" would that make any difference?

It's progress but still not quite right. Nobody knows that those things didn't have an impact as the recounts haven't concluded yet. As such:

"Isolated cases of voter fraud unlikely to have impact on election results"

Would be the more correct and least biased headline.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 03:18:11 PM
Quote
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 04:05:59 PM
Recent vote counts:
Pn: Biden +54,000
Wi: Biden +20,000
Mi: Biden +145,000
Az: Biden +12,000
Nv: Biden +36,000
Ga: Biden +14,000
NC: Trump +60,000 

If anyone can provide evidence of voter fraud in any of those states that gets close to 1/10 of the margin between the candidates I would be happy to listen. So for Arizona if you have something that would potentially impact 1,200 votes.

If its random Joe double voted then forget it. Unless you can show 1,000's of random Joe's all double voted and they all were of one party. I tend to think that the number of people who are willing to try something like that probably are about evenly split along ideological lines. Based on people being caught doing it in recent years Republicans outnumber Democrats because they've been listening to right wing media and Trump talk about how easy it is for years.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 04:10:54 PM
Only half of us have the energy to vote once, let alone twice.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
Trying to call those activities "systemic" or even "organized" is problematic at best, as to "widespread" that's another matter, but depending on how it was done, potentially very hard to detect let alone prove, especially with all of the opportunities for such abuses which were created this year.

Voter fraud opportunities are
1) Register fake people to vote (states have ways to identify and weed these out).
2) Register real people to vote and pretend to be them. (Hope they decide not to register and vote themselves)
3) Some kind of vote or ballot buying with mail in votes. (Hard to keep a large scale op secret)
4) Harvesting ballots and dumping all the ones from people who you think didn't vote for your guy.

1, 2 can be detected by taking a 1,000 randomly selected voters in the region you think fraud occurred in and go ask all of them if they voted.
3 gets busted by some idiot posting on facebook that he just got $20 for voting for x. Or by an honest person calling the cops on someone trying to give them money for their vote.
4 is detected by individual voters checking the status of their mail in ballots. When a lot of people say I gave my ballot to Dr. Evil and it never was turned in an investigation can ensue.

So what method of voter fraud is so devious and sneaky as to be completely undetectable? Republicans seem to think its so easy, they completely outperformed polls, maybe they are really good at it.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 05:03:05 PM
That's how I felt during the Gore "recount" in Florida.  It's absurd to demand of the opposition what we wouldn't demand from our own team.

The thing in Florida was effectively caused by the butterfly ballots taking away votes by accident from the Democratic party. So the will of the voters was violated and this violation gave Bush the win when Gore should have been president... but AFAIK it was done by accident, not deliberate fraud.

No the thing in Florida was caused by refusing to follow the actual legal process for partisan gain.  Sounds a lot like what's going on now, with a desire for selective rule changes to tip the scales.  The recounting process that kept finding new votes, was a precursor to the current ballot harvesting issues.  The belief was that if they just kept recounting they'd keep finding new Gore votes, or spoiling prior Bush ones until the election result flipped (which is why the recount had to be selective and only in DNC counties - despite state law - to ensure that the other side could do the same).

As a matter of law, the Constitution grants state legislatures authority over elections.  A state court overruling a state legislature is not a state law question, as they have mistakenly interpreted it to be from time to time, its a federal question.  The SC decision should have been 9-0 not 5-4, but it was correct in concluding that the FL SC was acting in violation of the Constitution with its continual interference in the State's defined process.

Quote
This in turn motivated Democrats to try to fix the false election outcome, by selective recounts. But that was from the beginning bull*censored*. The problem was in the ballots, not in the counting thereof.

Frankly the whole Florida election should have been repeated with properly made ballots, but I don't know if your constitution permits it or what not.

If the FL count had proceeded as it was required under law, it would have been certified far sooner in the process for Bush, and then Gore would have been able to try to challenge the results under the State rules.  His campaign did not view that as favorable, both because certifications are rarely overturned and because the rules for the challenge would have been even.  But, in answer to your question, the state legislature sets the rules and they could have included a re-run process if they had desired.

Quote
In fact, a big take away from this result - for me - is that never Trumpers have been repudiated.

Your cult of personality is showing. In the Democrat party, there are perhaps the centrists and the leftists.... in the Republican party there *used* to be conservatives, libertartians, hawks, whatever -- but now the only division that matters is people who like Trump and people who don't like Trump.

The only relevant distinction is between those who are part of the establishment and those who are trying to drain the swamp.  The raw numbers of voters for Trump went up, dramatically.  He made gains, by percentage, with every demographic group other than white men over where he stood when compared to Clinton.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/11/politics/election-analysis-exit-polls-2016-2020/ (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/11/politics/election-analysis-exit-polls-2016-2020/).  That's a stunning repudiation of the racist pigeonholing the DNC relies on.

Trump's policies are what caused those gains, and his personality is what cost him.

I said this is a repudiation of never Trumpism, but I should have narrowed that, because I only meant inside the Republican party.  Any Republican that endorsed Biden has to know from those results that the party doesn't agree with them.  The party and even new voters turned in large numbers for a lot of reasons, but not least of them to try and stop socialism and to repudiate radical policies, like defunding the police, that make their lives worse.  Policy is more important to conservative and libertarian voters than some concept of disliking Trump as a person, which is the failing of the politicians that purport to be conservative or libertarian.  There's no ground to claim to be conservative and then to endorse the Democrat candidate with the Democrat platform having moved to be the most extreme in history. Those that supported Biden admitted to the entire party that they don't believe in the goals they profess to be be supporting.

Quote
You are speaking of Trump and his opponents like a Stalinist would speak of Stalin and Stalin's opponents.

I wonder what will happen with you lot when Trump dies.

Nothing will happen.  Hopefully the door he cracked open showing the swamp won't be allowed to close, but I'm not remotely hopeful.  Obama-Biden engaged in wide spread corrupt abuse of their government authorities, and unlike the Special Counsel investigation that Trump let run for over 2 years, that cost the Republican's the House in the midterms and that concluded with no evidence of any crimes (other than their own), Biden's going to supress all evidence of wrong doing with the full help of the staff of the DOJ and FBI and all the other insiders that favor Dems to Repubs by more than 9:1.

We voted for more corruption.  We voted for a media that buries stories rather than reporting them.  We voted for prosecutors that target political opponents rather than crimes.  We voted for opium rather than reality, and that price is going to come due and be harsh.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 05:14:13 PM
As to the long polling lines? I've never had the occasion to live in such a precinct so it is outside my experience, but I also realize that certain cities probably have high rise apartment buildings with more eligible voters living there than live in my entire precinct.

I've lived in Manhattan and Brooklyn and never seen those lines either.  Longest line I ever heard of while I was in Manhattan was 30 minutes, and that was the result of broken voting machines.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 05:37:37 PM
Trying to call those activities "systemic" or even "organized" is problematic at best, as to "widespread" that's another matter, but depending on how it was done, potentially very hard to detect let alone prove, especially with all of the opportunities for such abuses which were created this year.

Voter fraud opportunities are
1) Register fake people to vote (states have ways to identify and weed these out).
2) Register real people to vote and pretend to be them. (Hope they decide not to register and vote themselves)
3) Some kind of vote or ballot buying with mail in votes. (Hard to keep a large scale op secret)
4) Harvesting ballots and dumping all the ones from people who you think didn't vote for your guy.

1, 2 can be detected by taking a 1,000 randomly selected voters in the region you think fraud occurred in and go ask all of them if they voted.
3 gets busted by some idiot posting on facebook that he just got $20 for voting for x. Or by an honest person calling the cops on someone trying to give them money for their vote.
4 is detected by individual voters checking the status of their mail in ballots. When a lot of people say I gave my ballot to Dr. Evil and it never was turned in an investigation can ensue.

So what method of voter fraud is so devious and sneaky as to be completely undetectable? Republicans seem to think its so easy, they completely outperformed polls, maybe they are really good at it.

You didn't get the secret memo sent out on the email list for libs? The millions of Americans who identify as Dems are all morally bankrupt, and very happy to lie, cheat and steal to install Biden as socialist dictator. None of them would report malfeasance, for sure.

*censored*, Republicans somehow think that poll workers are wholly partisan. On that they might be right, because only a sucker would take that job.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 06:26:09 PM
Yes, let me also mention the possibility that you'll commit rape and murder.

Your outrage over the Russian investigation is also quite amusing. A crime that actually happened, and the only issue was how many were involved - and in the end people couldn't prove Trump was involved, and so you argue they should be ashamed to ever investigate the person who benefitted from the crime at all. It's actually sane and not at all shameful to investigate the person who benefits from the crime.

Not sure what the heck you're talking about.  Mueller reached the actual conclusion that there was no evidence that any American colluded with Russia.  There literally was no crime by any American, including the members of the Trump campaign.  Mueller had to concede that despite his own team's unshakable religious conviction (i.e., completely taken as a matter of faith without evidence) that Trump must have been guilty of something.

As far as examples go, the Russian collusion investigation is so far more abusive than any amount of election fraud investigation that will ever occur it just makes you look completely unbalanced to cite to it.

Mueller wasn't even able to find that the Russians even had an influence on the election.

Quote
And as for the impeachment, that should have gone ahead, Trump was clearly asking for a quid-pro-quo, using the power of the state to get a foreign power to give him political ammo against his political opponents in the USA.

Trump was asking?  Do you have some proof of that?   The only on point statements about Trump were testimony where Trump expressly told others that there was to be no quid pro quo.  From that you've magically created a false narrative that the opposite occurred.  You've also created a false narrative that this was "political ammo" and not actually evidence of criminal activity by the Bidens.

Are you going to hold to this position if Joe Biden tries to investigate Trump's "crimes" by asking our foreign allies about interactions they had with him?  We already know the real answer - not a chance - that won't be impeachable conduct in your view, because you know, Trump is already guilty its just a matter of finding what he's guilty of, whereas Biden can't possibly be guilty no matter how much evidence is found.

Quote
Shameful that the Republicans refused to impeach him for that. There you had the means, the motive, the opportunity, the smoking gun and pretty much every proof you needee to convict.

They had no high crime or misdeamor.  They had no evidence of a high crime or misdeamor.  All they actually had, was a partisan Democratic House process that refused - much like any Banana Court - to provide any due process protections to the President.  A House Democrat process that used star chamber secret interrogations, from which the majority leaked damaging snippets to create a false narrative of guilt but that refused to provide access to the records and any exculpatory materials.  A majority that refused to allow the calling of defense witnesses (even in secret) and refused to honor any reasonable process for assistance of counsel.  In fact a majority that went out of it's way to find out the truth when it had a much more palatable way to get the narrative it was looking for.

A case based on a fake whistlyblower, written by activist lawyers, that turned out to have been purpose designed as the plan B impeachment option in case Mueller fell through.  But no matter how much coicindence occurs, no matter how thoroughly it's elements turn up in documents after the fact, you can't ever break away from the initial narrative you have in your head.

Even then, the star witnesses all turned out to be malicious mid-level bureaucrats, everyone of which denied seeing any actual crime or knowing of any connection to Trump, but who managed at various times to confirm their own views that notwithstanding our laws and our entire Constitutional structure that they - the mid level bureaucrats - were the proper deciders of policy and not the President and the elected officials.  Pretty much literal documentation of the deep state.

And to top it off, Trump was impeached for a fake crime that was based on Biden's actual crime.

Quote
But instead, you declare a crime that you have absolutely zero evidence it occured, because you can't stand the idea of your psychopathic villain not getting a second term. You don't investigate an existing crime, you invent it....

You are the one talking in absolutes that have no evidence, if there were evidence, Mueller would have brought it forward or the impeachment hearing would have presented it.

There is every evidence that fraud occurred in this election, in fact there are documented instances.  The increased use of mail in ballots added millions of additional contact points in the chain of voting custody.  A non-zero number of people in that custody chain are persons of limited morality, some of whom are even convicted or unconvicted criminals.  A non-zero number are super partisan.  A non-zero number are perfectly willing to commit fraud to achieve their goals.

How many is non-zero?  We can't know, and we'll never know.  What we do know, is that one party has consistently undermined any ability to determine that non-zero amount, has consistently intervened in election rules, in any way that they could whether or not legal, to subvert or eliminate those rules.  It just so happens that in many cases members of that same party happen to be the expected beneficiaries of any fraud, happen to be the ones responsible for preventing it at the local level, happen to be the ones charged with investigating it at the local level and happen to the ones who would report on it at every level.  I guaranty with 100% certainty, if this set of circumstances were created by Republicans there would be nothing on earth that could convince you that the election was fraud free, heck the way this game works, it could be 25% of this level of circumstances and you'd refuse to accept the result.

But yeah, no one will be able to prove the exact amount of it.  And no one is going to overturn the election, Republicans included, without that proof, but the threshhold of proof at which Republicans are going to think it should be overturned is lower (significant fraud whether or not provable that enough ballots were impacted) than the threshhold for Democrats (independent verification of specific fraudulent vote totals -and that it was Trump votes undercounted/Biden votes overcounted - that far exceed what it would take to reverse the election). 

So there's no remedy here, even if the election was stolen.  The results will still stand.  If they did commit fraud, those that did it will get away with it and, if any one goes to jail, they will be minor players that are pretty much happy to take the fall for giving their team power.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 12, 2020, 06:41:15 PM

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

I dunno, dude.  I think it has some to do with the fact that on some levels, different people just have different values, and we live in an age of eclecticism.  Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

The other half of it is, I believe, that people want to subscribe the having of different values and different beliefs to sinister motives.  Democrats are crooked.  Republicans are crooked.  Catholics are crooked.  Jews are crooked.  Mexicans are crooked.  All that jazz. 

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship.

There is something different now, but I don't think it is any that you listed.

If AGW is real, not believing it will almost definitely kill millions of people, at the minimum.

If Trump convinces enough people that the election was rigged when it was not, it will undermine our democracy.
If illegal immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers, then killing them is in our nation's best interest.

If enough people don't wear masks and follow health guidelines, Covid-19 will exponentially spread throughout our country, overwhelms hospitals and needlessly kill millions of people.

Before the parties disagreed about values and exactly how to handle our problems.  More or less money for welfare.  Higher or lower taxes.  Harsher or gentler punishments for crimes.  We disagreed about the degrees of the solutions.

Now we seem to disagree about reality itself.  About the facts.  Everything is an opinion now.  Trump can say factually incorrect things, and people will defend it as if it were merely his point of view.

How long can we agree to disagree when people's lives, and our nation's life, may be on the line?  :(
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Seriati on November 12, 2020, 06:51:54 PM
Biden raised $368 million from small donors (donations of less than 200$).  Trump only raised $268 million from small donors.

This is one of those things I'd like to see looked at.  Both with Biden, but also with the number of Senate races that hit eye popping numbers.  I think when you add up the totals it translates into an improbable number of households putting out an improbable amount of contributions to these campaigns.  I'd love to know what an investigation into the routing of big money through anonymous contribution brokers could turn up.  I mean, how many families really have thousands of dollars to donate to multiple campaigns in states where they don't live.

Quote
Biden also nabbed more big money donations than did Trump.

Biden's big advantage here was not in donations to Biden.  It was things like Bloomberg spending millions directly outside of Biden's official campaign.  In a country where we're supposed to be capped at a relatively small contribution of less than $20k, the fact that some could spend millions and more seems a pretty obvious hole in our process.

The fact that notwithstanding the repeated claim that the Republicans are the party of the rich, the mega rich consistently contribute to the Democrats should give some pause, yet it doesn't.  Democrats always cut deals with their allies in bind the scenes payola schemes.

Quote
At any rate, I brought up Biden's fundraising advantage to illustrate just how much so many people wanted to get rid of Trump.

Apparently just slightly more than wanted to keep him (despite  overwhelmingly negative personal reactions to him).  Real mandate there.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Wayward Son on November 12, 2020, 07:22:59 PM
Quote
Apparently just slightly more than wanted to keep him (despite  overwhelmingly negative personal reactions to him).  Real mandate there.

Considering that Trump never won the popular vote, Biden certainly has a much greater mandate than Trump ever did.  :D
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 08:05:53 PM
Quote
At any rate, I brought up Biden's fundraising advantage to illustrate just how much so many people wanted to get rid of Trump.

Apparently just slightly more than wanted to keep him (despite  overwhelmingly negative personal reactions to him).  Real mandate there.
Congratulations on missing the point even after I spelled it out to TheDaemon

I was making the point that a lot of people wanted Trump gone, and that the amount of money raised in small donations was evidence of that desire.  And that desire to see Trump gone is a better explanation of Biden's vote counts than, say, software that flips millions of votes to Biden from Trump, or hundreds of thousands of Democrats (and exclusively Democrats) voting using their dead grandparents' identities, or a completely secret conspiracy that spanned multiple states with different voting mechanisms and successfully cast hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes.

It had nothing to do with Biden's 5 million vote margin or his mandate.

But thanks for playing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 08:32:18 PM
Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

You know, in some respects this must obviously be correct. 600 years ago you wouldn't have gotten much dissent in proposing the Christian worldview or cosmic understanding. But is that really the sort of personalized view of the world people carry with them day in, day out? You would think it would be, actually, but I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I suspect that even within a 'Christian society' there was massive variation in personal comportment, views on people, on how to do business, on what we would now call politeness, and so forth. Now someone cuts a line and people scream; it's just a given. Back then I don't really know for sure but I suspect that there was more of an understanding that people are not something you can control so easily. From this standpoint any deviation from what we'd now call civility or normality would be just another instance of the breadth of human variety. Now we have names for each type of deviation of psychological normality; back then it was just people being people. Now we have names for different types or orientations of sexuality; back then there was just sexuality. People were sexual, they liked sexual things. Now there are categories. So yes it means we know more, but also means in a way we demand much more in certain categories of life. I think intolerance of any divergence of opinion is not a symptom of being heterogenous, but of being homogenous. The illusion is that now we are so open to diversity, but actually I think 2020 must be the pinnacle of intolerance to diversity in recent human history. Back in Chesterton's day disagreement through 'wars of letters' was commonplace, even journalistically celebrated. Now people will get offended if you tell them you disagree. That's a new thing, and not one born of being more diverse in nature; I suspect it's born of being less diverse in thought.

Just over 200 years we had people still getting killed in honor duels. They discontinued the practice, but in some respects, it probably had created a society prior to its ending that took being "polite and proper" a bit more seriously than later generations discovered they needed to. After all the penalty for "speaking out" of turn was no longer potential death.

The bigger problem seems to be that as society has advanced we've "knocked off  the rough edges" of a great many things, and as a consequence our society has lost the ability to cope well with adversity... Of any kind. Because it so rare that people in developed nations experience it during their formative years. (And the ones who do often end up with a lot of coddling after the fact, something that wouldn't have happened even 70 years ago.

Not all changes are for the better. It may be that social theory/psychology is going to have to acknowledge something comparable to what immunology is moving towards. Placing someone in a sterile environment where they need never worry about a great many infections is actually bad for the health of the vast majority of the population. It may also hold true that raising someone in an environment free of adversity is equally bad for the mental health of many people.

That also could explain many of the historical trends that are noted. Societies grow, reach a state of plenty and prosperity which will generally last for a handful of generations(children in the leadership echelons of society don't know/understand/appreciate adversity but become the leaders in time)... Ultimately culminating in those people of "entitled upbringing" becoming faced with a challenge they're unable to cope with, and the society falls apart as many of their peers likewise come to pieces as they have to try to deal with something they have no mental tool set to use for coping.

It isn't really decadence that bit them in the end, although that was likely a symptom. The real cause was lack of coping skills paired with little to no understanding of the "real world" in which they lived... Because they'd been protected from it for too much of their formative years.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2020, 08:35:44 PM
I've got a feeling that what's going to end up happening is that some Republicans will try to use the hoax of massive voter fraud to undermine the integrity of the election and by extension the authority of incoming President Biden and refer to him as an illegitimate President. It may be that some of them even believe it but for most of them it will just be a form of political warfare to grasp at power or at least keep it from the opposition even in the face of a lost election. Exactly like what the Democrats did to Trump with their Russian collusion hoax.

I think some will run with it as "payback for the Russia hoax"  they ran with. As sparse as the voter fraud evidence is, it's still more substantial than anything the Dems managed to turn up on Trump.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 08:47:55 PM
I think some will run with it as "payback for the Russia hoax"  they ran with. As sparse as the voter fraud evidence is, it's still more substantial than anything the Dems managed to turn up on Trump.
It takes willful ignorance to characterize the Russia investigation as a hoax.  Members of Trump's family, members of his campaign team, and even after his election, members of his administration cooperated with Russian agents to assist with Trump's election (and re-election).

Whether Trump was directly involved matters not at all - Russia was helping the Trump campaign, and even without knowing to what extent Russia was helping, members of his campaign cooperated with Russian agents in their efforts to elect their candidate.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 08:51:19 PM
I think some will run with it as "payback for the Russia hoax"  they ran with. As sparse as the voter fraud evidence is, it's still more substantial than anything the Dems managed to turn up on Trump.
It takes willful ignorance to characterize the Russia investigation as a hoax.  Members of Trump's family, members of his campaign team, and even after his election, members of his administration cooperated with Russian agents to assist with Trump's election (and re-election).

Whether Trump was directly involved matters not at all - Russia was helping the Trump campaign, and even without knowing to what extent Russia was helping, members of his campaign cooperated with Russian agents in their efforts to elect their candidate.

We don't listen to you because you are living in the socialist backwater of Canada. /sarcasm
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 12, 2020, 09:00:20 PM
Ah well... at least I have ready access to exceptional baked goods...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 09:01:04 PM
Ah well... at least I have ready access to exceptional baked goods...

Oh no, Quebecois croissants! Zut alors!
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 09:54:36 PM
Y-22,

“Voter fraud opportunities are
1) Register fake people to vote (states have ways to identify and weed these out).”


I have never heard of this.

“2) Register real people to vote and pretend to be them. (Hope they decide not to register and vote themselves)“

The average turnout in a general election, from total eligible voters, is ~60%. On a random basis your hypothetical seems to be a really good way for the perpetrator to get arrested provided the ballot is presented in person at a polling station. In a mail-in scenario, or unmonitored drop-box, there is little risk.

“3) Some kind of vote or ballot buying with mail in votes. (Hard to keep a large scale op secret)“

Risk is correlated to some degree with the target population, and disclosure of the purchaser’s identification. It is illegal to sell a ballot, as well as buy one, so there is some inherent protection. When compounded by buyer discretion in remaining anonymous to the seller, actual risk is near zero.

“4) Harvesting ballots and dumping all the ones from people who you think didn't vote for your guy.”

Harvesting that targets populations in need of political “education”, ie.; retirement homes, psychologically institutionalized patients, government housing projects, or just going door to door in low income housing tracts, would pretty much raise the typical 60% “eligible“ voter participation to upwards of 90%+, depending upon persistence of the farmer. Not surprisingly, assisted voting normally conforms to “educational” directives. Undue influence negates any need for hypothetical ballot sorting.

“1, 2 can be detected by taking a 1,000 randomly selected voters in the region you think fraud occurred in and go ask all of them if they voted.”

I doubt #1 occurs at all, and #2 is ineffectual in picking up the margins of victory in contemporary elections.

3 gets busted by some idiot posting on facebook that he just got $20 for voting for x. Or by an honest person calling the cops on someone trying to give them money for their vote.

Only if #3 provided identification along with the cash.

4 is detected by individual voters checking the status of their mail in ballots. When a lot of people say I gave my ballot to Dr. Evil and it never was turned in an investigation can ensue.

No, ballot harvesting does not work that way.

Recent posts in this thread have despaired the imminent demise of democracy, and even incitement of civil violence. If there is serious interest in restoring the public trust, stop screwing with the vote. That is the genuine and immediate threat to our democracy.

The two parties functioned in a reasonable state of cooperative opposition for approximately 128 years (until the Clinton administration). To begin a return to the age of “loyal opposition”, eliminate all of the electioneering gamesmanship encompassed above, and restore the secret, in-person vote from rolls that are purged every election cycle, as a default mode, with restrictive conditions on absentee ballots. Without confidence in the worth of a vote, democracy is an empty concept.

Civil comity would also be greatly aided if Democrats recognized that their party’s efforts at post-election nullification, of Trump’s presidency, are equally effective in provoking Republican animosity, as is outright voting fraud. For example; within this thread it was asserted that the Obama FBI was justified in misusing FISA authority as a precursor to spying on the Trump campaign, transition team, and governing administration, allegedly because Carter Page, a minor foreign policy campaign advisor, could not restrain himself from talking to “CCP“ operatives. It was not enough to demolish that inane proposition. The discussion ended with an even more absurd hypothesis, to wit; Mr. Page was a CIA mole sent to spy on not just any U.S. citizen, but his boss, in violation of Executive Order 12333 of 1981, and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General.

Would the Lefties on this site be better able to appreciate the harm done to America if, should he be installed as President, Joe Biden had the same welcome to office?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 12, 2020, 10:00:34 PM
You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem? Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 10:11:35 PM
NH,

“You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem?“

It is Republican confidence that you want to avoid Republican opposition.

“Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.”

Okay, I will say something; make the proposal bipartisan.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 10:13:59 PM
NH,

“You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem?“

It is Republican confidence that you want to avoid Republican opposition.

“Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.”

Okay, I will say something; make the proposal bipartisan.

Republicans want to improve security. Democrats want to improve access. A bipartisan effort has to address both of those things, but it will never happen because each party only sees one side of the issue.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 10:20:58 PM
Drake,

“A bipartisan effort has to address both of those things, but it will never happen because each party only sees one side of the issue.”

If these two aspects of voting are really exclusive of each other, then you are effectively arguing against democracy. Is that your position?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 10:34:23 PM
Drake,

“A bipartisan effort has to address both of those things, but it will never happen because each party only sees one side of the issue.”

If these two aspects of voting are really exclusive of each other, then you are effectively arguing against democracy. Is that your position?

My position is that they are not exclusive. As you should already know from everything I've written on the subject. It seems you couldn't care less about adding hurdles to voting. Like most of your ilk, you dismiss every concern about access by stating openly that anyone who won't do it like they did it in the 1950s is not an adult.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 10:41:12 PM
Drake,

“Like most of your ilk, you dismiss every concern about access by stating openly that anyone who won't do it like they did it in the 1950s is not an adult.”

Why is my statement wrong?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 10:56:35 PM
Drake,

“Like most of your ilk, you dismiss every concern about access by stating openly that anyone who won't do it like they did it in the 1950s is not an adult.”

Why is my statement wrong?
\
If you don't know, I doubt I can successfully explain it to you.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 10:58:01 PM
Give it a try, I am patient.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 11:16:11 PM
Citizens shouldn't have to take a day off from work to vote, as you've blithely suggested. Citizens shouldn't have to pay for daycare to vote, a defacto poll tax. Citizens shouldn't have to travel miles to drop off a ballot. Period. But you dismiss people who have to make those choices as "children".
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 11:35:06 PM
Drake,

Adult citizens usually work. It seems that every artificial limitation which you have placed on voting, would also be an obstacle to employment. Do you see any flaw in that analogy?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2020, 11:41:17 PM
Drake,

Adult citizens usually work. It seems that every artificial limitation which you have placed on voting, would also be an obstacle to employment. Do you see any flaw in that analogy?

Disabled veterans.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 12, 2020, 11:54:41 PM
Disabled veterans, as in blind, para, or quadriplegic, correct? Any others?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 12:09:21 AM
Drake,

Consider the following: http://www2.itif.org/2012-making-voting-accessible-vets-disabilities.pdf

“Election officials can better serve these voters if they understand the barriers to voting faced by veterans with disabilities and the opportunities that exist to make the electoral process more accessible. All citizens, with or without a disability, should be assured they are able to vote privately, securely, and independently

“The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 requires states to allow active duty service members to vote by absentee ballot in federal elections, and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 requires states to support military voters with electronic systems to obtain voter registration and absentee ballot request forms and have their absentee ballots delivered“
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 12:44:13 AM
So if it is safe for that group to vote, why can't we let every other citizen opt in to the same avenue?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2020, 12:52:04 AM
So if it is safe for that group to vote, why can't we let every other citizen opt in to the same avenue?

That would be the "overseas citizens" part of that act. If you're not overseas, you should be living where you vote, with an extremely short list of additional exceptions.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 12:57:03 AM
So if it is safe for that group to vote, why can't we let every other citizen opt in to the same avenue?

That would be the "overseas citizens" part of that act. If you're not overseas, you should be living where you vote, with an extremely short list of additional exceptions.

Same argument. If the overseas citizens can do that safely, why can't somebody 3000 yards from their voting location do the same?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 06:55:47 AM
Drake,

“Same argument. If the overseas citizens can do that safely, why can't somebody 3000 yards from their voting location do the same?”

If that us the extent of partisan compromise that would ensure both security through “Voting assistance... provided more extensively to... (voting) facilities. (And) State and local election officials (would) develop uniform statewide procedures for providing assistance in... community-based facilities for voter registration and absentee voting. (And) Election officials (would) prepare and conduct training for (poll) staff and volunteers who are designated to provide voter assistance.”, and accessibility, I would sign on.

But notice that under the Act you still have to physically drag your body to a State designated assisted voting facility, which in common language is called a “polling station“. I am not sure how even accommodations currently in place for disabled veterans makes casting a mail-in ballot easy enough for your vision of an average voter.

What this could not evolve into, and still maintain the VA voter assistance criteria, is an independent vote-harvesting contractor model, with a political “education“ agenda.

Does that satisfy your needs for convenience?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 07:24:30 AM
Serious about voter fraud, and access? Do this:
1. Federal databases of all births in the country, including retinal scans. This could be done in hospitals, doctor's offices after the fact, or by registered doulas, or nurse practitioners.
2. Frequent updates of retinal scans and facial scans of all residents until the age of majority.  This could be done in schools, or even libraries, at doctors' appointments, in hospitals during treatments, etc.
3. The data could be regularly updated thereafter, though would not be required as often (retinal patterns and face shapes changing less significantly after that age.
4. Every person born would also be provided with a subcutaneous microchip implantation, including a GUID, uniquely identifying each person. 
5. Immigrants would also be provided with the same benefits, and citizenship would be dependent on the verification of all these features.

Voting could then be done from anywhere, using a smartphone and a government app, or from a desktop computer, or an acquaintance's phone or computer. Those without access to either could use libraries, or could use polling places as is done today.  Voting kiosks could even be set up at post offices, at ATMs, at banks, etc.

Of course, maybe one feels there needs to be more control - and if that's the case, do away with all the access methods with the exception of dedicated polling places, but still require retinal and facial scans, and chip confirmation. Although setting up temporary polling places would seem to be the most open to being hacked and compromised...

Security of the voting process is important, right?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 07:48:42 AM
Donald,

Your Canadian conditioning is showing through. :

“Voting could then be done from anywhere, using a smartphone and a government app, or from a desktop computer, or an acquaintance's phone or computer. Those without access to either could use libraries, or could use polling places as is done today.  Voting kiosks could even be set up at post offices, at ATMs, at banks, etc.”

The Act’s criteria provided that: ”All (American) citizens, with or without a disability, should be assured they are able to vote privately, securely, and independently“

Orwellian exercises in population control are not an American value priority.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 07:54:14 AM
JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election)

Quote
“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

...

"While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 08:03:47 AM
Donald,

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

An “E” syllogistic proposition. Let’s see how long that one survives a casual test.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 08:12:57 AM
Your Canadian conditioning is showing through
Your misplaced chauvenism is showing.

Hint: clearly, security isn't paramount to you. That was my point.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 13, 2020, 08:55:43 AM
Yes, let me also mention the possibility that you'll commit rape and murder.

Your outrage over the Russian investigation is also quite amusing. A crime that actually happened, and the only issue was how many were involved - and in the end people couldn't prove Trump was involved, and so you argue they should be ashamed to ever investigate the person who benefitted from the crime at all. It's actually sane and not at all shameful to investigate the person who benefits from the crime.

Not sure what the heck you're talking about.  Mueller reached the actual conclusion that there was no evidence that any American colluded with Russia

No. There was lots and lots of evidence. The report concludes there wasn't *sufficient* evidence to conclude collusion, it doesn't say there wasn't any evidence at all.

And the report does conclude that crimes did happen -- that the Russian government violated US criminal law. It describes "ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected". The report says the Russian interference was "welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts".

Your constant outrage that the investigation even happened is absurd.
Do keep in mind btw, that Trump has 'redacted' parts of the report, claiming 'executive privilege'.

Quote
Mueller wasn't even able to find that the Russians even had an influence on the election.

AFAIK the Mueller report is an investigation on the crimes that happened, not a sociological investigation about how much their campaign of interference affected the voting population. So "it wasn't even able to find" -- how would you have expected to be able to find such?

Quote
And as for the impeachment, that should have gone ahead, Trump was clearly asking for a quid-pro-quo, using the power of the state to get a foreign power to give him political ammo against his political opponents in the USA.

Quote
Trump was asking?  Do you have some proof of that?

I saw the actual transcript of the Trump call.
Quote
ZELENSKY: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.

TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your weal thy people. ... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
[...]The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

It's clearly quid-pro-quo. He's asking for a favour regarding a Ukraine-rather-than-Russia-did-it conspiracy theory, and then asks ammo about Biden's son.

This is undeniably quid-pro-quo. Trump couldn't make it more explicit unless he had actually used the words "quid pro quo". The guy speaks about defense contracts, Trump responds "we need a favour though" about something utterly unrelated except in how it's about criminal investigations about him and his opponents.

Quote
Are you going to hold to this position if Joe Biden tries to investigate Trump's "crimes" by asking our foreign allies about interactions they had with him?

If Biden says that he "needs a favour though" about his political opponents or about his son or Trump's sons, when the other countries are discussing defense arrangements with the United States, yes I will.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 09:16:55 AM
Hint: clearly, security isn't paramount to you. That was my point.
And if it wasn't also clear - I was giving you the opportunity to show that the limits of your concern about security end when the proposed mechanisms affect everybody equally, and not, coincidentally of course, primarily those with whom you disagree on policy.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 09:17:15 AM
Donald,

“Your misplaced chauvenism is showing.“

“Misplaced” in what way? You are the one coming to an American website, discussing American politics, and offering Canadian advice, not the other way around. It seems that you view America as exceptional, and that I do not see Canada in the same way.

Did you not just suggest that proof of identity was vital to legal voting? This is in conformity with, much stricter, Canadian naturalization laws:

”Filing income tax:

You may need to file taxes in Canada for at least 3 years during the 5 years right before the date you apply.


Language skills:

Canada has two official languages: English and French. If you’re 18 to 54 years of age on the day you sign your application, you must show that you can speak and listen at a specific level in one of these languages.

The ways we measure your language skills in English or French include:

- Reviewing the proof you send with your application.
- Noting how well you communicate when you talk to a citizenship official anytime during the process
assessing your language level during a hearing with a citizenship official, if necessary.

To become a citizen, you need to meet the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) Level 4 or higher. This means you can:

- Take part in short, everyday conversations about common topics.
- Understand simple instructions, questions and directions.
- Use basic grammar, including simple structures and tenses.
- Show you know enough common words and phrases to answer questions and express yourself.

If you’re 18 to 54 years of age on the day you sign your application, you need to take the citizenship test. You’ll need to answer questions about the rights and responsibilities of Canadians and Canada’s:

- History
- Geography
- Economy
- Government
- Laws
- Symbols

The test is:

- In English or French
- 30 minutes long
- 20 questions (pass mark: 15 correct answers)
- Multiple-choice and true or false questions.
- Based on the official citizenship study guide: Discover Canada
-Usually written, but may be oral.

Prohibitions

-If you committed a crime in or outside Canada you may not be eligible to become a Canadian citizen for a period of time.
- Time spent serving a term of imprisonment, on parole, or on probation doesn’t count as time you’ve lived in Canada.“



“Hint: clearly, security isn't paramount to you. That was my point.“

Note the cultural elitism implied by language requirements. Clearly, in your attempt to be ”clear”, you misunderstand American values. Stay within your political bubble.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 09:26:40 AM
Yes, I understand you don't want people to notice that my point flew well over your head.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
Donald,

Your ”point“ is trivially mundane. Every public policy has practical limits.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 09:38:52 AM
Y-22,

“Voter fraud opportunities are
1) Register fake people to vote (states have ways to identify and weed these out).”


I have never heard of this.

“2) Register real people to vote and pretend to be them. (Hope they decide not to register and vote themselves)“

The average turnout in a general election, from total eligible voters, is ~60%. On a random basis your hypothetical seems to be a really good way for the perpetrator to get arrested provided the ballot is presented in person at a polling station. In a mail-in scenario, or unmonitored drop-box, there is little risk.

“3) Some kind of vote or ballot buying with mail in votes. (Hard to keep a large scale op secret)“

Risk is correlated to some degree with the target population, and disclosure of the purchaser’s identification. It is illegal to sell a ballot, as well as buy one, so there is some inherent protection. When compounded by buyer discretion in remaining anonymous to the seller, actual risk is near zero.

“4) Harvesting ballots and dumping all the ones from people who you think didn't vote for your guy.”

Harvesting that targets populations in need of political “education”, ie.; retirement homes, psychologically institutionalized patients, government housing projects, or just going door to door in low income housing tracts, would pretty much raise the typical 60% “eligible“ voter participation to upwards of 90%+, depending upon persistence of the farmer. Not surprisingly, assisted voting normally conforms to “educational” directives. Undue influence negates any need for hypothetical ballot sorting.

“1, 2 can be detected by taking a 1,000 randomly selected voters in the region you think fraud occurred in and go ask all of them if they voted.”

I doubt #1 occurs at all, and #2 is ineffectual in picking up the margins of victory in contemporary elections.

3 gets busted by some idiot posting on facebook that he just got $20 for voting for x. Or by an honest person calling the cops on someone trying to give them money for their vote.

Only if #3 provided identification along with the cash.

4 is detected by individual voters checking the status of their mail in ballots. When a lot of people say I gave my ballot to Dr. Evil and it never was turned in an investigation can ensue.

No, ballot harvesting does not work that way.
...

Would the Lefties on this site be better able to appreciate the harm done to America if, should he be installed as President, Joe Biden had the same welcome to office?

So of all the voter fraud instances I could think of your response is:
1) It doesn't happen.
2) Seems like a great way to get caught.
3) Its easy to get away with if you only buy votes from smart unscrupulous people.
4) People are praying on the elderly or people otherwise mentally unfit with ballot harvesting.

My point is that all of these are easy to detect even if the perpetrator remains anonymous. Show me police reports where a person called the cops for someone trying to buy their ballot. Show me reports from senior care staff or the families of residents of aggressive ballot harvesters preying on seniors. Even if Dr. Evil ballot harvester/buyer remains anonymous there is evidence that the crime/fraud was committed. You don't even have that. So unless you know of some way that 10,000+ ballots could be altered, eliminated, or otherwise tampered with give up on the message that this election is being stolen, Trump being the rightful winner, or vague "security waiver" concerns.

P.S. This is a internet forum for discussion, insulting people or discounting their opinions for being Canadian is a jerk move. We're here to discuss ideas. Country of origin doesn't really matter in that context.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 09:51:17 AM
Y-22,

“This is a internet forum for discussion, insulting people or discounting their opinions for being Canadian is a jerk move. We're here to discuss ideas. Country of origin doesn't really matter in that context.”

And certainly, any epithets that Donald has issued calling me a “liar”, or “chauvinist”, are at minimum an equally “jerk” move, correct?

I am entitled to refute both. That is not a “jerk” move, it is “discussion of ideas”.

“My point is that all of these are easy to detect even if the perpetrator remains anonymous. Show me police reports where a person called the cops for someone trying to buy their ballot. Show me reports from senior care staff or the families of residents of aggressive ballot harvesters preying on seniors.”

A single incident of all categories will be adequate, correct?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 09:59:03 AM
“My point is that all of these are easy to detect even if the perpetrator remains anonymous. Show me police reports where a person called the cops for someone trying to buy their ballot. Show me reports from senior care staff or the families of residents of aggressive ballot harvesters preying on seniors.”

A single incident of all categories will be adequate, correct?

Sure if you want to demonstrate 10 votes were tampered with. You're the one alleging fraud on the scale that could change the outcome of a state. I've already stated I'll accept without evidence that a 100 votes nationwide were somehow fraudulently cast. What I'm looking for is evidence of what Trump and you are claiming (since you think he's going to win now) which is evidence that anywhere near 10,000 votes in a single state could have been tampered with (only by Biden supporters). We've already seen two cases of Republicans in Pennsylvania being caught trying to double vote or vote for a dead relative. So clearly there are mechanisms in place to catch this type of fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 13, 2020, 10:03:15 AM
Y-22,

Which is it, “Sure”, or “What I'm looking for is evidence of what Trump and you are claiming (since you think he's going to win now) which is evidence that anywhere near 10,000 votes in a single state could have been tampered with (only by Biden supporters).”?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 10:03:40 AM
Sure if you want to demonstrate 10 votes were tampered with. You're the one alleging fraud on the scale that could change the outcome of a state. I've already stated I'll accept without evidence that a 100 votes nationwide were somehow fraudulently cast. What I'm looking for is evidence of what Trump and you are claiming (since you think he's going to win now) which is evidence that anywhere near 10,000 votes in a single state could have been tampered with (only by Biden supporters). We've already seen two cases of Republicans in Pennsylvania being caught trying to double vote or vote for a dead relative. So clearly there are mechanisms in place to catch this type of fraud.
The challenge is bigger than that, actually: Trump's campaign has to show the likelihood of that level of fraud in at least 3 separate states in order to reduce Biden's EC count below 270.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 10:13:56 AM
The full quote with emphasis added.
Quote
Sure, if you want to demonstrate 10 votes were tampered with. You're the one alleging fraud on the scale that could change the outcome of a state. I've already stated I'll accept without evidence that a 100 votes nationwide were somehow fraudulently cast. What I'm looking for is evidence of what Trump and you are claiming (since you think he's going to win now) which is evidence that anywhere near 10,000 votes in a single state could have been tampered with (only by Biden supporters). We've already seen two cases of Republicans in Pennsylvania being caught trying to double vote or vote for a dead relative. So clearly there are mechanisms in place to catch this type of fraud.
Y-22,

Which is it, “Sure”, or “What I'm looking for is evidence of what Trump and you are claiming (since you think he's going to win now) which is evidence that anywhere near 10,000 votes in a single state could have been tampered with (only by Biden supporters).”?

I'll listen and I'm interested in if you have evidence of any level of voter fraud. I've already posted that I don't like ballot harvesting. And I'll give you 100 fraudulent ballots without evidence.

But what Trump and you are claiming is voting fraud on a scale of 10,000+ votes per state. So if you have stories that 10 or 20 ballots are fraudulent don't be surprised if I'm not blown away and start calling Biden's election a sham on democracy.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2020, 11:19:52 AM
Quote
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

Except for the one system which did change vote tallies(but not the votes themselves), but was quickly caught and corrected.

"Quickly caught and corrected" does not make a thing unhappen.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: wmLambert on November 13, 2020, 11:30:18 AM
You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem? Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.

You realize that is a direct and provable lie, don't you? There has been voter fraud and senior Democrats have been sent to prison for election after election. It seems to be a way of life for them.

Voting is fundamental to our Constitutionally-limited Republic - but vote fraud IS a partisan issue. No matter how innocent you claim to be, any Democrat apologist in this forum must admit it is the Democrats who have tried to steak this election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 11:38:00 AM
You realize that the only reason there's a lack of confidence in the vote is because the GOP has spent the last decade screaming about voter fraud without any evidence that it's a significant problem? Yet your proposal says nothing of getting the GOP to stop making voting a partisan issue.

You realize that is a direct and provable lie, don't you? There has been voter fraud and senior Democrats have been sent to prison for election after election. It seems to be a way of life for them.

Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years. And how many votes each manipulated.

Bonus points if you can beat the Republican Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. responsible for around 900 potentially fraudulent votes.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 13, 2020, 12:16:03 PM
No matter how innocent you claim to be, any Democrat apologist in this forum must admit it is the Democrats who have tried to steak this election.

No, it's the Republican president who asked people to vote twice.

This video gives a collection of all the lawsuits made and the 'evidence' that the Trump team has shown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6pI3-nWmSQ

Case after case, each one gets dismissed with each judge saying the equivalent of "No evidence has been shown that there was any illegality".

At this point, all the Trumpers have to go on, is their assumption stated in advance, that they can only lose if there's fraud. That's the only evidence they have: They lost, therefore it must be fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 12:18:09 PM
Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years.

I was kind of curious about that myself. Don't hold your breath waiting for Lambert to actually back up his nonsense.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 13, 2020, 12:28:51 PM
Lambert like a very large percentage of the 70 million that voted for Trump believe without any doubt that the democrats are trying to steal the election regardless of proof.
Accusing the 'other' while looking away from the realty as presented by the facts. When truth and facts don't matter neither does reality. 

I don't see how dialog is possible when the experience of reality is so different. 
For myself I find myself asking if its my experience of reality that might be off.. I wonder if the Lambert's ever ask themselves that question.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 13, 2020, 12:33:01 PM
He calls it transference.  You project on other what you would do.
Trump loves to cheat (see his personal life and his golf game) so he is positive every one else is cheating. I mean why not?  It helps you win and winning is everything. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 12:35:13 PM
Can you give a list of senior democrats who have been sent to prison for voter fraud in the last 20 years.

I was kind of curious about that myself. Don't hold your breath waiting for Lambert to actually back up his nonsense.

Here's the giant master list of about 1000 cases in the past 20 years.

Heritage hears a who (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf)

The vast majority of these were attempting to influence a local race, which makes sense. \\

Shenanigans are usually detected easily.

Quote
Olivia Lee Reynolds was convicted of 24 counts of voter fraud.
While working on the 2013 campaign for her boyfriend, Dothan City
Commissioner Amos Newsome, Reynolds filled out voters’ ballots
for them and told others for whom to vote. Her fraud had definite
consequences: Commissioner Newsome won reelection by a mere
14 votes, losing the in-person vote by a wide margin but winning an
incredible 96 percent of the absentee vote. Newsome himself faced
pressure to resign as a consequence. Reynolds was sentenced to
serve six months in a community corrections facility. She is appealing
the conviction.

In a word, stupid people. Like this foolishness eating criminal penalties for five votes in a two bit Alabama election.

Quote
Gay Nell Tinker, a former circuit clerk for Hale County, pleaded guilty
to multiple counts of absentee ballot fraud after her scheme to
orchestrate fraudulent absentee ballots for the benefit of multiple
candidates was uncovered. She admitted to falsifying the ballots
of five voters to benefit certain candidates, including her brother,
Circuit Court Judge Marvin Wiggins, and her husband, Senator
Bobby Singleton (D–Greensboro).

These jokers are decidedly represented by Republicans as well.

Quote
Jason Holly and Jessica Sundell pleaded guilty in 2006 to a felony
charge of fraudulent completion of an affidavit of registration, and
were sentenced to three years’ probation. It was discovered that
more than 100 people who thought they were signing petitions
to cure breast cancer and punish child molesters were actually
registering as Republicans in an elaborate vote-flipping scheme.
Donahue Farrow pleaded guilty in 2008 for his involvement
in this scheme. He was sentenced to 46 days in jail and three
years’ probation. Five others have also pleaded guilty over their
involvement in this scheme.

Quote
Rebekah Joy Paul pleaded guilty to falsifying voter registrations prior
to the 2012 general election. While employed as a voter registration
worker with a political consulting firm hired by the Republican Party,
she created false voter registrations. She and her co-conspirator
admitted to faking 27 registrations for Duval County. She was
sentenced to community service

And the Canadians do it too!

Quote
Joshua Workman, a Canadian citizen who was one of the youngest
delegates to the 2000 Republican National Convention, was charged
by the Department of Justice with casting ineligible votes during
the 2000 and 2002 primary and general elections in Avery County.
He made false statements claiming U.S. citizenship in order to vote.
As part of a plea agreement, Workman pleaded guilty to a federal
misdemeanor charge of providing false information to election
officials and subsequently returned to Canada.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 01:09:07 PM
Quote
One law firm however has had enough. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur filed a suit on behalf of the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania just days ago, but has already withdrawn from the case.

"Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws," it said in a court filing.

Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 13, 2020, 01:10:27 PM
He calls it transference.  You project on other what you would do.
Trump loves to cheat (see his personal life and his golf game) so he is positive every one else is cheating. I mean why not?  It helps you win and winning is everything.

Its beyond transference and projection. IMO
Lambert appears to authentically believe Trump is a man of the highest integrity and morality.   Nothing Trump did, does or says can or should be questioned. 
Trump does not cheat at golf he manages the reality of the experience. If the score shows that he lost its because everyone else cheated, which excuses his cheating as not being cheating.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2020, 01:15:44 PM
Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 01:16:05 PM
Trump campaign lawyers giving up on Arizona:

Quote
Lawyers for the Trump campaign dropped its lawsuit seeking a review of all ballots cast on Election Day after finding that the margin of victory for the presidential contest in Arizona could not be overcome.

“Since the close of yesterday’s hearing, the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors,” the Trump campaign wrote in a filing. It said it did want the judge to rule on their requests to review votes for two down-ballot races.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Grant on November 13, 2020, 01:26:04 PM
EXERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PETER NAVARRO, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TRADE AND MANUFACTURING POLICY

PETER:  Maria, we're moving forward here at the Whitehouse under the assumption that there will be a second Trump term. 

MARIA:  Blink blink blink blink blink blink

PETER: Clearly the President won this election, was leading on election day, and after election day somehow in these key battleground states they got just enough votes to catch up to the President, and that's kind of what is being investigated.

FOX BUISINESS:  Shows Electoral College Map - Shows Biden 290, Trump 217.  Shows national popular vote map, Biden up by 5,183,583 votes. 

PETER:  Any speculation about what Joe Biden might do is moot at this point. 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-official-peter-navarro-says-white-house-staff-assumes-there-will-be-a-second-trump-term/

This is one of the geniuses behind L'Orange's trade policy.  I'm reminded of members of the Nazi party who refused to accept defeat after the failure of Citadel, and the successes of Avalanche and Overlord. 
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 01:28:53 PM
Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 01:39:44 PM
Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.
Or maybe, they are afraid of getting sanctioned by the judge and having their careers derailed...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 13, 2020, 01:41:20 PM
EXERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH PETER NAVARRO, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TRADE AND MANUFACTURING POLICY

PETER:  Maria, we're moving forward here at the Whitehouse under the assumption that there will be a second Trump term. 

MARIA:  Blink blink blink blink blink blink
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 13, 2020, 03:22:00 PM
I guess when Trump is not paying for all of these suits why not spend other peoples money? That is what he is best at.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2020, 04:03:52 PM
I guess when Trump is not paying for all of these suits why not spend other peoples money? That is what he is best at.


Quote
Villagers for Trump Founder David Gee said $7,700 was collected to help Trump’s legal fees in challenging the election outcome – with promises of more to come.

“We had many Trump supporters waiting on our parade to show support,” he said. “It was a very good day for our members.”
Quote

Because of course they did, and naturally dozens of Trumpians own golf carts.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 13, 2020, 04:08:09 PM
Except more than half of that donation is going to pay off his campaign debt, not the legal fee's for the challenges.  It is in the small print of the donation form.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: rightleft22 on November 13, 2020, 04:27:28 PM
Going to look into my crystal ball....

I see future charges that Trump and members of his family embezzled funds from campaign donations for personal use.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 04:53:31 PM
Going to look into my crystal ball....

I see future charges that Trump and members of his family embezzled funds from campaign donations for personal use.

Nah, the other half of the money goes to Trump’s pac. He can use that in lots of ways.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 13, 2020, 05:16:26 PM
Well they have called NC for Trump and GA for Biden. Trump lost 2 more law suits and drop the one in AZ.  Legal options running out fast.

306 to 232.

msquared
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 13, 2020, 06:05:19 PM
Even Trump's lawyers are jumping ship. And you know it is bad when a lawyer turns down billable hours.

Might have something to do with groups Doxing the lawyers in question, and many of their clients as well when doxing the lawyer isn't enough.

Might have something to do with not wanting to hire a firm that likes to fire off frivolous lawsuits undermining the Constitution and the American electoral process.

Or maybe the retainer check bounced or didn't arrive. The campaign was in debt, the money Trump's raising "for legal fees" is going to pay off the campaign debts and to his pac. Maybe all those billable hours weren't looking so profitable after all.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 05:52:56 AM
Y-22,

“I'll listen and I'm interested in if you have evidence of any level of voter fraud.”

Good, that is one of the objectives of the Georgia hand-recount, where a .25% vote gap between the candidates yields the type of numbers that you are looking for (~14,000). November 20th is the recount deadline. Wisconsin is also on the path to a recount, with a .6% difference (20,000 votes). Michigan compared their census data with voter registration, and found something that really caught my attention. There are 240,000 more registered voters than there are people over the age of eighteen. Compounded by 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities in Wayne County, Michigan, the next week should be very interesting to follow. The real fight, in terms of institutional change, will be over the constitutionality of extended voting deadlines in Minnesota, and North Carolina. ACB did not participate in the recent SCOTUS ruling, and the Court will be taking up the issue again.

“I've already posted that I don't like ballot harvesting. And I'll give you 100 fraudulent ballots without evidence.“

That is refreshing. Ballot harvesting is probably the biggest obstacle to election integrity, which is also why Democratic organizations have fought hard to preserve the practice. Legally, it will be a real challenge to eliminate. I don’t need the “100” ballots, but why would you offer them?

Would you be complacent with a Biden presidency being obstructed in the same manner as the Trump presidency was?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 08:13:04 AM
Y-22,

“I'll listen and I'm interested in if you have evidence of any level of voter fraud.”

Good, that is one of the objectives of the Georgia hand-recount, where a .25% vote gap between the candidates yields the type of numbers that you are looking for (~14,000). November 20th is the recount deadline. Wisconsin is also on the path to a recount, with a .6% difference (20,000 votes).

Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.

Quote
Michigan compared their census data with voter registration, and found something that really caught my attention. There are 240,000 more registered voters than there are people over the age of eighteen.

2010 census? States grow kids age onto the voting rolls.

Quote
Compounded by 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities in Wayne County, Michigan, the next week should be very interesting to follow.

Depends on what they are swearing too.
Quote
The real fight, in terms of institutional change, will be over the constitutionality of extended voting deadlines in Minnesota, and North Carolina. ACB did not participate in the recent SCOTUS ruling, and the Court will be taking up the issue again.

No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.
Quote
“I've already posted that I don't like ballot harvesting. And I'll give you 100 fraudulent ballots without evidence.“

That is refreshing. Ballot harvesting is probably the biggest obstacle to election integrity, which is also why Democratic organizations have fought hard to preserve the practice. Legally, it will be a real challenge to eliminate. I don’t need the “100” ballots, but why would you offer them?

Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.
Quote
Would you be complacent with a Biden presidency being obstructed in the same manner as the Trump presidency was?

Doesn't matter what I am complacent with, I fully expect the senate to fully obstruct anyway.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 14, 2020, 08:23:38 AM
Well 4 GOP governors have said they will not entertain the possible plan Trump has to over ride the popular vote in their state. On the cynical side you could see this a them knowing that if they did, they would be voted out at the next election for screwing with the popular vote. Those running against them could run on either the Gov. let a corrupt election happen or they could say they were spineless weasels who were caving in to Trump.  The generous side is that they know their elections were fair and Trump lost their state.

I think the fat lady sings in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 14, 2020, 11:57:41 AM
I was going to ask Noel to explain ballot harvesting for us but this seems to give us a good start:

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/ballot-harvesting--what-is-it--how-does-it-work-.html

I wonder where this idea of fraud is coming from:

"Some see the practice of ballot harvesting as a voter service that has long-assisted elderly voters and Native American voters living on remote reservations. Others see it is a political tool that can easily lend itself to fraud."

What's interesting is how what's perfectly fine in one state like California is totally illegal in another state like North Carolina, and also interesting is how the use of ballot harvesting led to basically the total takeover of California by Democrats from Republicans.

Also interesting is how California makes it easier and easier to harvest ballots:

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/elections/yes-ballot-harvesting-is-legal-in-california/103-067a65c5-9bde-4ff4-a815-97dee5597597

"Prior to 2013, a voter had to be ill or disabled for someone else to return their ballot for them. Plus, that person had to be a family member or a member of the same household.

After 2013, the law was changed. Being ill or disabled was no longer required. A family member or a member of one’s household could return ballots.

In 2016, the law changed again thanks to Assembly Bill 1921. Now, anyone could return another person’s ballot and there was no limit on how many ballots a person could return."

It seems like all one would have to do would be to carefully choose what areas to harvest ballots from. Everything else would be perfectly legal but you just don't go to areas where the Demographics favor Trump. Of course you also skip any houses with a Trump sign out front, a 100 Club sticker on the car in the driveway, and so on. Not fraud at all either; a perfectly legal way to steal an election.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 14, 2020, 12:35:58 PM
Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 02:22:17 PM
Y-22,

“Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.“

North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial counts ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes. In 2004, a Georgia judicial race which initially tallied a 400 vote differential, ended with a recount margin reduced to 15 votes. Pennsylvania saw the same effect in a 2010 judicial race separated by ~83,000 votes. The post-recount total narrowed the spread to 281 votes. Do you see a pattern? How would you explain it?

Outright change in the election result happened in Washington’s 2004 Governor race, and the 2008 Minnesota Senate race that saddled the nation with the mammary-grabbing clown Al Franken.

Recounts matter.

“No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.”

Illegality takes more forms than fraud, and you are missing the larger point; conservatives want the corruption exposed, and ended.

“Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.”

A “single” fraudulent ballot, or “100”, would be meaningless judging by your own statements. You wanted an election result change volume, and that requires a recount. I want the fraud prosecuted regardless of outcome.

“Doesn't matter what I am complacent with, I fully expect the senate to fully obstruct anyway.“

I am actually referring to more insidious measures employed by Barry. Do you need me to repeat what that third-world emulating community-organizer did?

M2,

“Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law.“

Are you, at some point, going to give evidence that you are “conservative”? Supposedly Kasich was your man based upon a principled analysis of character. Do you really want Republican’s to begin ballot harvesting?

Cherry,

“It seems like all one would have to do would be to carefully choose what areas to harvest ballots from. Everything else would be perfectly legal but you just don't go to areas where the Demographics favor Trump. Of course you also skip any houses with a Trump sign out front, a 100 Club sticker on the car in the driveway, and so on. Not fraud at all either; a perfectly legal way to steal an election.”


It is merely unethical unless a well-meaning political educator fills out ballot to “help” a voter, or uses pressure of any sort to influence a vulnerable voter’s choice. Then it is fraud, the variety that appears frequently in will modification. Proving undue influence is another matter. It is difficult even in the case of an impaired testator. Imagine trying to prove it in a gated retirement community.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 02:58:48 PM
Correction: “North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial count (differentials) ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount (spread) totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes.“
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 14, 2020, 03:02:07 PM
"Or Trump supporters could do the same thing for their own voters? I mean it is not against the law."

It wouldn't be good for global warming with how much more gas that would require and carbon it would spew. But yeah, them's the brakes.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: LetterRip on November 14, 2020, 03:17:15 PM
cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station
  Though less efficient than mailing the ballot.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 03:24:05 PM
LR,

“cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station
  Though less efficient than mailing the ballot.”


Even in California, I have never been further from a polling station than a bike-ride, and normally it was walking distance. How much greener can you get?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 03:33:00 PM
Y-22,

“Modern recounts have never changed the final outcome by more than a couple hundred votes. I'm not sure how Trump demanding recounts is evidence of anything.“

North Carolina had three statewide judicial races, since 2006, ending in initial counts ranging from 3.000 to 6,000, with post-recount totals revised down to between 17, and 667 votes. In 2004, a Georgia judicial race which initially tallied a 400 vote differential, ended with a recount margin reduced to 15 votes. Pennsylvania saw the same effect in a 2010 judicial race separated by ~83,000 votes. The post-recount total narrowed the spread to 281 votes. Do you see a pattern? How would you explain it?

The only pattern I see is you misinterpreting data. All of the numbers you gave for vote spread was the change in vote totals from the original. So in NC the strongest case you can make for a recount you had the margin in a race change from 5,988 to 6,655. The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/could-recount-flip-key-battleground-history-says-don-t-count-n1246596 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/could-recount-flip-key-battleground-history-says-don-t-count-n1246596)


Quote
Outright change in the election result happened in Washington’s 2004 Governor race, and the 2008 Minnesota Senate race that saddled the nation with the mammary-grabbing clown Al Franken.

Recounts matter.

I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.
Quote
“No fraud there. I don't see the SC delegitimizing votes states said would be accepted before the election. Also there aren't enough of those to change the outcome in any state.”

Illegality takes more forms than fraud, and you are missing the larger point; conservatives want the corruption exposed, and ended.

Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.

Quote
“Clearly you do. You haven't shown a single fraudulent ballot yet.”

A “single” fraudulent ballot, or “100”, would be meaningless judging by your own statements. You wanted an election result change volume, and that requires a recount. I want the fraud prosecuted regardless of outcome.

I told you I would look at any fraudulent votes, I said I don't particularly care about 1 offs of an individual double voting or voting for a dead relative. But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede, free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things. Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: LetterRip on November 14, 2020, 03:36:30 PM
In Alaska I averaged 10 mile drive to the polling stations from work.  Arizona I had to drive 2 miles to drop off my ballot.

Since voting is based on home address rather than work address, it can be quite far - many poor people have a hour+ commute to their polling station from work.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 04:08:24 PM
Y-22,

“The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.”

Fair, I misinterpreted the numbers.
 
“I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.”

Nonetheless, a rebuttal of your statement. Recounts do matter.

“Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.”

As a member of the Party that has relied upon U.S. Supreme Court decisions to overturn State courts since the 1960’s, in reversing legislated law, I am surprised that you would ask.

What will be your position on Supreme Court “legality” when it begins overturning State court decisions in the Amy Coney Bennett era?

”But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede... “

No, voting fraud in the 1,000s is worth pursuing, and prosecuting. That would not happen if Trump conceded.

“... free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things.“

Would you then turn a blind eye to Trump positioning the intelligence community into orchestrating a Crossfire-Hurricane reprise?

“Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.“

I am a bipartisan “book thrower”.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 04:47:26 PM
Y-22,

“The vote totals changed by 667 votes but the margin didn't change by 6,000 votes as you claimed. Same in Pennsylvania, the 83,000 vote margin changed by about 200 votes.”

Fair, I misinterpreted the numbers.
 
“I agree, and in all three of those cases the original margin of victory was less than 500. Not a great precident when you're trying to make up a 12,000+ vote differential.”

Nonetheless, a rebuttal of your statement. Recounts do matter.

Way to segue straight from misinterpreting data to misrepresenting me. I said no such thing. I said that recounts almost never change the outcome by more than a few hundred votes and asking for a recount shows no evidence of fraud. The data from the races you selected is evidence for my statement that recounts don't change vote totals by more than a few hundred.

Quote
“Illegality that was upheld by the state's supreme court? How is that illegality or corruption.”

As a member of the Party that has relied upon U.S. Supreme Court decisions to overturn State courts since the 1960’s, in reversing legislated law, I am surprised that you would ask.

What will be your position on Supreme Court “legality” when it begins overturning State court decisions in the Amy Coney Bennett era?

I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.

Quote

”But if you/Trump aren't demonstrating fraud in the 1,000's of votes then he could go ahead and concede... “

No, voting fraud in the 1,000s is worth pursuing, and prosecuting. That would not happen if Trump conceded.

Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting. And that could happen with or without Trump conceding. But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread. Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying "I won, you cheated. Boohoo"

Quote
“... free up the intelligence community to meet with Biden, allow the government to release funds to Biden to begin the transition and do all those other things.“

Would you then turn a blind eye to Trump positioning the intelligence community into orchestrating a Crossfire-Hurricane reprise?

Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.

Quote
“Then you can proceed tracking down all the Trump voters in NC who listened to Trump and voted by mail then again in person and throw the book at them.“

I am a bipartisan “book thrower”.

Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 05:10:10 PM
Y-22,

“I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.”

Do you believe that unconstitutional, as contrasted with “bad”, decisions exist? If so, are they legal?

“Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting.“

You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

“And that could happen with or without Trump conceding.”

It ”could”, but it wouldn’t, and you are the perfect stereotype to make that point. A priori, fraud didn’t happen, correct?

“But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread.”

Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

“Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying ‘I won, you cheated. Boohoo’ “

Right now you are pretending clairvoyance. I am unabashedly delighted that this election is being subject to a proctological examination, and if it takes a toddler’s temperament to force the issue, so be it.

“Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.”

If he plans to govern, I would hope that he is talking on the “sly” with them. You are probably confused about what actually happened, right?

Are you going to respond to my question regarding Corssfire-Hurricane, specifically FISA abuse?

“Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.”

That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 06:16:30 PM
Y-22,

“I think the court is about to embark on an era of poor decisions. Me disagreeing with the SC decisions doesn't make that decision illegal.”

Do you believe that unconstitutional, as contrasted with “bad”, decisions exist? If so, are they legal?

By definition they are "legal." Dred Scott was a travesty of justice and immoral but by definition it was "legal." The SC gets to determine constitutional as well. I tend to treat saying their decisions are constitutional as a tautology. They can be wrong and future courts get to overrule them but after they decide until they are overruled or an amendment is passed their decisions are constitutional.

Quote
“Your right if voting fraud were that widespread it would be worth pursuing, and prosecuting.“

You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

So now Trump is "investigating". Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning? Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?

Quote
“And that could happen with or without Trump conceding.”

It ”could”, but it wouldn’t, and you are the perfect stereotype to make that point. A priori, fraud didn’t happen, correct?

“But there is no evidence voting fraud is that widespread.”

Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

Make your case. We're 11 days out from the election. Trump has been "investigating" that whole time. How many fraudulent ballots have been found to date? Can you show any results from that investigation? I'll accept 10 fraudulent ballots found per day of investigation as a sign of progress. Can you meet that threshold?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 14, 2020, 06:20:04 PM
You are diving into the circular argument again. Investigation is how voter fraud is determined.

So if there has to be investigation before you conclude if there's voter fraud or not, why aren't you asking for an "investigation" on all 50 states in every elections?

Was there such an investigation in 2016? If not, are you saying that there's a 50% probability that Trump became president in 2016 due to voter fraud? If not 50%, what probability do you assign to Trump having been elected president in 2016 due to voter fraud?

Quote
Here we go again; you do not get to determine that.

Yet somehow it's fine for Trump to determine there's lots and lots of evidence?

By this point we've seen the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had: every informed individual can determine it. And every single court that has seen the so-callled evidence, has rejected the allegations of fraud.

Quote
That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

And if the investigation determines there's been no fraud, I'm sure you'll say Trump owes Biden & the Democrats an apology for insisting there was. /s
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 06:24:23 PM
Quote
“Right now you're just grasping at straws to justify Trump behaving like a toddler who just lost a game and is throwing a temper tantrum and saying ‘I won, you cheated. Boohoo’ “

Right now you are pretending clairvoyance. I am unabashedly delighted that this election is being subject to a proctological examination, and if it takes a toddler’s temperament to force the issue, so be it.

There are other ways to investigate elections without throwing a temper tantrum and trying to cause chaos and division throughout the country.

Quote
“Has Biden or his team been meeting with Chinese and Ukrainian officials on the sly in order to get dirt on Trump? If so, then no I don't really have any problem with Wray heading up an investigation into Biden.”

If he plans to govern, I would hope that he is talking on the “sly” with them. You are probably confused about what actually happened, right?

Are you going to respond to my question regarding Corssfire-Hurricane, specifically FISA abuse?

What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did. But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.

Quote
“Still waiting on Trump to come looking for voter fraud in NC. Wait, what's that, no lawsuits in NC, what is different about NC and all the other close states? Could it be Trump won? And Trump doesn't want there to be any investigation if he won.”

That is the difference between us, I want the fraud uncovered, and terminated.

Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 14, 2020, 06:50:54 PM
In our system are you not innocent until proven guilty?  Is the election then not correct until proven corrupt? And you need evidence for an investigation? And there is no evidence.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 08:37:31 PM
Y-22,

“By definition they are ‘legal’.

So if the Supreme Court determined that the NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, New Yorker Slate, Buzzfeed, and Politico must cease publication because they do not serve the public interest (general welfare), that would be, by definition, legal?

"Dred Scott was a travesty of justice and immoral but by definition it was ‘legal.’

By definition, the Dred Scott decision was constitutional, and therefore “legal”. Without passage of the 13th, and 14th amendment to “correct“ (make “good“ law), it would still be legal.

“The SC gets to determine constitutional as well. I tend to treat saying their decisions are constitutional as a tautology.“

I know.

“They can be wrong and future courts get to overrule them but after they decide until they are overruled or an amendment is passed their decisions are constitutional.”

Rather than Dred Scott, lets look at something that would affect you directly; what if the FBI Director decided that your brand of politics was subversive to the interests of the United States, and organized a special detail to monitor your activities, and black mail you into submission. You bring suit in the Federal court system, and the SCOTUS agrees with the FBI. Is it constitutional?

“So now Trump is ‘investigating’.”

No, his legal team is.

“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

“Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?”

Because they do not trust your party.

“What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did.“

Wrong, if the State bureaucracy can be enlisted by a political entity to destroy an opponent with impunity, democracy is finished.

“But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.“

This is completely unresponsive to my question. Either you really do not understand what happened, or you don’t want to understand. Address the legality of FISA warrants obtained by the Obama FBI to surveil the Trump campaign absent a predicate.

“Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.“

Did you just tell me that my position on voter fraud investigation was “... just grasping at straws”?

Aris,

“So if there has to be investigation before you conclude if there's voter fraud or not, why aren't you asking for an ‘investigation’ on all 50 states in every elections?“

Logistics are my only source of hesitation for pushing investigation of all fifty states. The reason that “every election” has not needed the same treatment, is that there has been a qualitative change in what Democrats are willing to do to acquire, and maintain, power. Why do you think it is going to take so long to get Y-22 to concede that subverting FISA by the Obama administration has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels?

“Was there such an investigation in 2016?”

No.

“If not, are you saying that there's a 50% probability that Trump became president in 2016 due to voter fraud?”

I would say that there was a 100% chance of voter fraud. It apparently was not enough. If you follow American politics very closely, you will note that Republicans have always been the primary advocates of voting security. That is where we see our political interests, not voting chaos.

“If not 50%, what probability do you assign to Trump having been elected president in 2016 due to voter fraud?”

Again, there was a 100% chance of fraud, and it is contrary to conservative interests to propagate, or institutionalize it. If Hilary wanted to scrutinize voting security, I would have welcomed it just like I do now.

“Yet somehow it's fine for Trump to determine there's lots and lots of evidence?“

In America, any candidate is entitled to challenge the voting results. Ask Al Gore.

“By this point we've seen the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had: every informed individual can determine it.”

Not at “this point”, but soon enough.

“And every single court that has seen the so-callled evidence, has rejected the allegations of fraud.”

“Every court“ challenge has not been completed, and even when they are finished there remains the more serious “legal” example, the Democratic bread and butter, ballot harvesting.

“And if the investigation determines there's been no fraud... “

If any court determines there was “no fraud”, I then know that court is full of crap.

“I'm sure you'll say Trump owes Biden & the Democrats an apology for insisting there was. /s”

You would be wrong.

M2

“In our system are you not innocent until proven guilty?“

In our system, the government and its bureaucracy is always subject to audit by the people. They work for us.

“Is the election then not correct until proven corrupt?”

Only if the governed are imbecilic.

“And you need evidence for an investigation? And there is no evidence.”

No, you need suspicion to investigate, which produces evidence if evidence is to be found.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 14, 2020, 09:20:27 PM
Quote
“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?

Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See "Birthergate" and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.

Quote
The reason that “every election” has not needed the same treatment, is that there has been a qualitative change in what Democrats are willing to do to acquire, and maintain, power.

LOL. So much for other people supposedly doing circular reasoning. You're not saying an investigation is always needed, you're saying an investigation is needed because you decided that the Democrats are evil.

Well, I've decided then that Trump and every *censored* who voted for him is evil and suspect of voting fraud, as evidenced by how Trump admires president-for-life Putin, as evidenced by how Trump urged his voters to vote twice, as evidenced by how he said he would seek a third term as president, even though that was blatantly unconstitutional.

Trump has repeatedly proven that he'd do anything to get and maintain powers, and that he admires other people (again like Putin) who would do anything to get and maintain power -- while he's supported by blatantly neo-fascist groups who hate democracy and all it stands for.

As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either. You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.

Quote
I would say that there was a 100% chance of voter fraud. It apparently was not enough.

Or maybe it was, and Trump became an illegitimate president because of it.

Quote
If you follow American politics very closely, you will note that Republicans have always been the primary advocates of voting security.

Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.

I mean, you guys have really not made it a secret that you really don't want Puerto Rico becoming a state. Are you gonna claim that has anything to do with security? It has everything to do with preventing Hispanics from voting, as they mostly tend to vote Democrat.

Quote
If any court determines there was “no fraud”, I then know that court is full of crap.

"No evidence of fraud" or "No discernible fraud" if you want to be nitpicky. What if the court decides that?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 14, 2020, 09:26:44 PM
“So now Trump is ‘investigating’.”

No, his legal team is.

And the ones who haven't been laughed out of court or quit have found what?

Quote

“Why's he making all those fraud claims and statements about him winning?“

Because he believes what he is saying.

Why does he believe that? What evidence does he have to support his beliefs? Other than an ego so large and fragile it can't handle a loss.

Quote
“Why are there people on the streets of Washington DC chanting 4 more years and stop the steal?”

Because they do not trust your party.

Interesting since I'm not a member of a political party.

Quote

“What Trump is doing is more damaging than anything Crossfire-Hurricane did.“

Wrong, if the State bureaucracy can be enlisted by a political entity to destroy an opponent with impunity, democracy is finished.

Didn't seem to stop Trump from being elected the first time. Crossfire hurricane resulted in multiple guilty pleas from the Trump camp. One FBI agent pled guilty to one illegal modification of a FISA warrant. Seems like the justice system is working okay.

Quote
“But if Flynn doesn't lie, Trump doesn't panic and fire Comey, Cohen doesn't pay off porn stars in an illegal way, and Stone doesn't lie to congress about communicating with WikiLeaks then Crossfire-Hurricane comes to nothing and none of us probably ever hear of it.“

This is completely unresponsive to my question. Either you really do not understand what happened, or you don’t want to understand. Address the legality of FISA warrants obtained by the Obama FBI to surveil the Trump campaign absent a predicate.

There was a predicate. The tip about Papadopoulos bragging about Russian contacts, the Trump tower meeting with Russians, the "Russia if your listening" hack some emails for me, Stone's correspondence with hackers and wikileaks. All of that is predicate for an investigation. Did one guy cross the line on a FISA warrant? Yes. But there was plenty of predicate to look into stuff absent Carter Page.

Quote
“Stop trying to identify what I want or think unless I tell you directly you're not good at honestly reading and interpreting what others write.“

Did you just tell me that my position on voter fraud investigation was “... just grasping at straws”?

That was my opinion of how strong your position is. You keep attributing things to me that are flat out false. That I said recounts never matter, when actually what I said was recounts typically don't change more that a few hundred votes. You say I don't care about voter fraud, when I do. I made a lengthy post about what I would do to make elections more secure and how to detect all the types of fraud you are alleging.


Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 14, 2020, 09:33:35 PM
Courts only rule on what is presented to them. To-date, they have not seen evidence of anything of note.  That doesn't mean there isn't any, it doesn't even mean there is no evidence, it just means that the evidence provided to support whatever the Trump campaign is alleging in that particular case wasn't compelling.

Quote
Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.

QFT.

There has been found no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud that would effect state-wide or presidential elections for decades.  Not even when conservative groups do the research (see the heritage foundation, and Trump's own commission dedicated to finding same.)  Yet even in the face of that consistent lack of evidence of the existence of fraud, certain groups propose, purely for the purposes of security, of course, policies that would predominantly disenfranchise their political opponents.

And for all those saying we must investigate voter fraud!  It is important to do so!  Why do you want to avoid looking?!?!  Well, the answer is that Trump just finished investigating fraud, and that commission found diddly squat.  Should such investigations occur every 2 years, or just when Republicans need to drum up political cover for voter disenfranchisement?  Or, of course, for political theatre after losing an election?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 14, 2020, 10:54:43 PM
"Cherry, a handful of people collecting votes in a neighborhood is much more environmentally friendly than each person driving to the polling station."

Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of one Democrat operative could harvest thousands of ballots from apartment complexes right next to each other just by walking around while her Republican counterpart would be driving down dirt roads in the country going from one farm to the next one a mile away.

But let's unpack this a little bit to make sure I understand. So highly partisan political operatives are given thousands of ballots that just need to be filled out and that's okay because the protocols in place for ensuring there is no fraud committed with them are good enough? It seems like if we want to protect the vote we need to start with protecting the ballots.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 14, 2020, 11:14:34 PM
So a question.

If Trump were in the lead and Biden was the one asking for all of these reviews and challenges, would you other conservative members be OK with that?  Or would you be saying Biden should concede and accept the outcome of one of the most cleanly run elections (as reported by Trumps own election security office).

That is what bugs me the most.  This claim that this is about election security when he is only doing it in states he lost.  Why not states he won?  None of them had changes in election rules?  None of them have ever had any election fraud in the past?

The "civic duty" to protect the election process rings hollow when you truthfully look at what he is doing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 14, 2020, 11:29:45 PM
As usual, Ann Coulter nails it. 

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/11/the-democrats-guide-to-losing-gracefully/

Democrats often have a big problem accepting the results of elections when they lose.

"... Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore."

It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

That seems like a pretty good date to me too. Unless things change significantly and the needle on evidence moves before then, that would be a good time to seriously consider a Trump concession. Until then, history is in Trump's favor, at least as far as Democrats refusing to concede.

As far as a recount everywhere, yeah, that was kind of the problem Gore had with only asking for recounts in cherry-picked places. I wouldn't be opposed to all the i's being dotted and the t's being crossed just to make sure everything everywhere is on the up and up.




Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 14, 2020, 11:46:25 PM
Aris,

“You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?“

Yes, and I am surprised that you do not. With his sense of self, how could he not believe what he is saying?

“Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See ‘Birthergate’ and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.“

He thought that Ted Cruz’s farther was a communist Castro disciple too, because he saw it in the Enquirer.

“LOL. So much for other people supposedly doing circular reasoning. You're not saying an investigation is always needed, you're saying an investigation is needed because you decided that the Democrats are evil.“

I am saying that they are not trustworthy.  That is a predictable consequence arising from a political perspective that rests, for example, in a presumption that the Supreme Court is right because they have the power to declare themselves right.

“Well, I've decided then that Trump and every *censored* who voted for him is evil and suspect of voting fraud, as evidenced by how Trump admires president-for-life Putin, as evidenced by how Trump urged his voters to vote twice, as evidenced by how he said he would seek a third term as president, even though that was blatantly unconstitutional.“

Objectively “unconstitutional” or expediently unconstitutional? If you ever run for public office, I encourage you to act on your suspicions.

“Trump has repeatedly proven that he'd do anything to get and maintain powers, and that he admires other people (again like Putin) who would do anything to get and maintain power -- while he's supported by blatantly neo-fascist groups who hate democracy and all it stands for.“

No, Trump is not fascist, but he is authoritarian.

“As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either. You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.“

I feel you Aris, but you do not understand conservatives, and you don’t have to.

“As evidenced by the fact that you *censored* don't accept a clear democratic win by his opponent either.”

Due process is not a foreign concept in Greece, is it?

“You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.”

Wow, you are strangely invested in America for someone who despises half of its citizens.

“Or maybe it was, and Trump became an illegitimate president because of it.”

Like I said...

“Nah, Republicans tend to be in favour of fewer people of color voting. They claim "security" in order to make people go through hoops before they can vote, in hopes that they won't vote at all.“

When this whole democracy thing started (about the same time as the Sophists) in your neighborhood, was it a good thing, what were the voting requirements, and was political dissent encouraged?

“I mean, you guys have really not made it a secret that you really don't want Puerto Rico becoming a state. Are you gonna claim that has anything to do with security? It has everything to do with preventing Hispanics from voting, as they mostly tend to vote Democrat.“

Would you be in favor of naturalizing Turks on a massive scale?

“ ‘No evidence of fraud’ or ‘No discernible fraud’ if you want to be nitpicky. What if the court decides that?”

If a court decides that, there has been an investigation justifying that conclusion, we accept it within a democracy, human foibles allowed.

Y-22,

“Interesting since I'm not a member of a political party.”

Yes, and Msquared is conservative.

“Didn't seem to stop Trump from being elected the first time.”

Yes, that surprised everybody, including Trump I think.

“Crossfire hurricane resulted in multiple guilty pleas from the Trump camp. One FBI agent pled guilty to one illegal modification of a FISA warrant. Seems like the justice system is working okay.”

That “... one illegal warrant” was renewed three times to perpetuate a farce investigation. And there you have it, your sitting President can conspire (literally) against an opposing parties’ candidate for president, and you are okay with it. Is anyone else on this board signing on to similar treatment of Biden?

”There was a predicate. The tip about Papadopoulos bragging about Russian contacts... “

No, and even Andrew McCabe said that without the Steele “dossier” no FISA warrant would have been issued. As for Papadopoulos;

“The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos ‘suggested’ to him that the Trump team had received ‘some kind of suggestion’ of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/499586-new-fbi-document-confirms-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without%3famp

“... the Trump tower meeting with Russians, the "Russia if your listening" hack some emails for me, Stone's correspondence with hackers and wikileaks. All of that is predicate for an investigation. Did one guy cross the line on a FISA warrant? Yes. But there was plenty of predicate to look into stuff absent Carter Page.”

Not according to the James Comey, the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz, or FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/12/17/judge-fbi-surveillance-applications-086709

I actually liked Trump’s public request for HRC emails from Russia. If our FBI could not deliver, use foreign intelligence.

Do you remember what it it was on Hillary’s illegal bathroom/government server that mortified the DNC? It was John Podesta‘s comment about kissing up to “needy latino’s”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-to-court-needy-latinos-in-wikileaks-email%3fcontext=amp

“That was my opinion of how strong your position is.“

Can I use that line with you in the future?

“You keep attributing things to me that are flat out false.”

Well, you are meeting the “flat out” standard with me.

“That I said recounts never matter, when actually what I said was recounts typically don't change more that a few hundred votes. You say I don't care about voter fraud, when I do. I made a lengthy post about what I would do to make elections more secure and how to detect all the types of fraud you are alleging.”

I remember that post. I have mentioned that I like your position on ballot harvesting. I wish that you could come the rest of the way.

”Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”


1,298 investigated, and prosecuted. Cases unprosecuted are absent from the count.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: NobleHunter on November 14, 2020, 11:47:38 PM
As usual, Ann Coulter nails it. 

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/11/the-democrats-guide-to-losing-gracefully/

Democrats often have a big problem accepting the results of elections when they lose.

"... Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore."

It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

That seems like a pretty good date to me too. Unless things change significantly and the needle on evidence moves before then, that would be a good time to seriously consider a Trump concession. Until then, history is in Trump's favor, at least as far as Democrats refusing to concede.

As far as a recount everywhere, yeah, that was kind of the problem Gore had with only asking for recounts in cherry-picked places. I wouldn't be opposed to all the i's being dotted and the t's being crossed just to make sure everything everywhere is on the up and up.






Except things had quite clearly gone awry in Florida. The overall election hinged on a single state with a very small margin of victory. That's before the whole "hanging chads" thing comes into play.

There is no such ambiguity in this election. It's been clear for a week and highly suggestive for days before that.

What reason does Trump have to wait another month?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2020, 12:24:28 AM
People asked for evidence. There was evidence in Pennsylvania that votes were set to be counted that may not have been eligible for counting because they were late. One court ruled against Trump but a higher court ruled in his favor. Scenarios like that take time to play out.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 15, 2020, 12:36:44 AM
Except that since they new those ballots might be challenged, they were kept in their own pile and not listed as part of the vote total. So the lead Biden had did not go down with the court case, it just did not go up as much as if they had been allowed.  Again, no fraud. That was not evidence of fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 12:50:56 AM
It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

2000 was a difference of less than a thousand votes in a single state, where btw Jeb Bush was governor.

Trump now has to overturn probably fifty thousand votes across three or four states.

Strange how you have to go back to 2000. Why not look to 2016, where the electoral outcome was same as now, 306 to 232? Isn't that a fairer comparison?

Somehow Hillary Clinton conceded on the day immediately followjng the election. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/donald-trump-won-now-what.html
"Hillary Clinton publicly conceded the election to Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, acknowledging the pain of the defeat in remarks in New York while calling on her supporters to accept that he would be president and give him a chance to lead with an open mind."

 "According to the authors of Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, by late Tuesday night the White House had concluded that Trump would win the election. Obama's political director David Simas called Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to persuade Clinton to concede the election, with no success. Obama then called Clinton directly, citing the importance of continuity of government, to ask her to publicly acknowledge that Trump had won"

But you know, that's the difference between responsible adults, and irresponsible manchildren,

Quote
Would you be in favor of naturalizing Turks on a massive scale?

The equivalent of Hispanics for America are probably Albanian immigrants for Greece, and yes I'd be overjoyed if many many more of them were allowed to vote.

I also supported the Annan plan for Cyprus, which would have brought together the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities again.

By your comparison between Greece and Turkey, I guess you are implying that Puerto Rico is a great military threat to the United States, with many times the military might of the United States, and thus you are worried about giving it any more leverage over you, because you are worried it'll use such leverage to conquer your land and annex your territories.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2020, 01:24:50 AM
"Hillary Clinton publicly conceded the election to Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, acknowledging the pain of the defeat in remarks in New York while calling on her supporters to accept that he would be president and give him a chance to lead with an open mind."
[...]
"According to the authors of Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign, by late Tuesday night the White House had concluded that Trump would win the election. Obama's political director David Simas called Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to persuade Clinton to concede the election, with no success. Obama then called Clinton directly, citing the importance of continuity of government, to ask her to publicly acknowledge that Trump had won"

But you know, that's the difference between responsible adults, and irresponsible manchildren,

I appreciate that one would like to draw comparisons between Trump and others who are more mature. But this is the example you picked of "responsible adults", where Clinton went on to initiate a campaign to undermine Trump's presidency? There is no way in which she had any intention of giving him a chance to lead with an open mind. I'm not disputing whether Trump acts in an immature fashion, but it's just laughable that Clinton's loss and what followed it is an example of anything other than petulant and vindictive entitlement.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 01:51:29 AM
Aris,

“By your comparison between Greece and Turkey, I guess you are implying that Puerto Rico is a great military threat to the United States, with many times the military might of the United States, and thus you are worried about giving it any more leverage over you, because you are worried it'll use such leverage to conquer your land and annex your territories.”

It is a reasonable comparison. Have you ever heard of the term “Reconquista”? It is a Central American recast of the 9th century Christian expulsion of Arabs from the Iberian peninsula. When I was in a California High School, the MECHA club members graffitied “LA RAZA“ on everything that would accept spray paint. It was not a slogan of inclusivity, or assimilation. It was a hopeful chant of annexing the American Southwest. I did not take their aspirations seriously until it became obvious that the California Democratic Party could turn the movement into a cash cow (the “Needy Latino” formula spoken of by John Podesta).

I visited that school about ten years ago. In a middle to upper middle class neighborhood that was 95% Caucasian, it is now 5% Caucasian, 44% Latino, 39% Asian, 20% Black, and 5% Pacific Islander. 78% of the student body are from an “economically disadvantaged” household, as determined by student eligibility for California's Reduced-price meal program. Academic achievement is reflected in the change, as is on campus violence.

The cultural effect upon the school that I remember is not positive.

I really don’t understand what it is between the Greeks, and Turks, but that conflict has lasted for about 100 years. At minimum there must be a cultural disjuncture. America is not designed to accommodate that degree of Balkanization. The Mexicans call the emerging social order “Azatlan”. Look it up.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2020, 02:39:12 AM
> msquared

> Except that since they new those ballots might be challenged, they were kept in their own pile and not listed as part of the vote total. So the lead Biden had did not go down with the court case, it just did not go up as much as if they had been allowed.  Again, no fraud. That was not evidence of fraud.

If votes are counted that are not supposed to be counted or not counted when they are supposed to be counted it really doesn't matter if it's fraud or judges making mistakes. It's certainly a just cause for waiting to let things settle themselves out through the courts and also a good reason to let investigations proceed. They were supposed to quarantine those ballots and hopefully they did but earlier there was cause for concern about them not being separated like they were supposed to be.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2020, 07:33:46 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/way-president-trump-win-reelection-124438669.html

These talking heads made some good points. You count every legally cast vote and throw out every illegally cast vote. And it's going to take some time and court cases to sort out which are which.

And why should Trump concede when we don't even have the certified results yet?

I don't honestly think Trump won and I don't think he will win but... stranger things have happened. It makes absolutely no sense to throw in the towel before the final results are known with 100% certainty. Like they say in chess, nobody ever won a game by resigning. We just need to play it all out to the very end and see what happens. If Trump gets checkmated by the courts and then the final certified vote of the Electoral College then "Game over man, game over" but until that happens Trump supporters by and large are very supportive of his willingness to fight; to never say die and never surrender even if as the internet tells us "This maxim today is often used ironically and deprecatingly, for something that has already failed."

Still going through Veep and just finished season 4 and am well into season 5 and (spoiler alert perhaps) the election and recount and closeness of some of the states is really timely for what's happening now. They had the funniest scene in which each side had demonstrators out chanting for stopping the vote or counting the vote depending on how they thought it would be to their advantage or disadvantage but then as the votes were getting counted and the situation of advantageousness swapped places each candidate changed their position on stopping the vote or continuing to count. Also on the night of the election just as one candidate was about to call in and concede things turned around. I see in the news how damaging the delay is to national security and so on but it's funny how the media didn't seem keen on bringing any of that up when Gore failed to concede until well into December.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 15, 2020, 07:59:22 AM
It makes absolutely no sense to throw in the towel before the final results are known with 100% certainty.
There are definitely reasons to do so - and they are why every single modern presidential candidate who ended up losing did publicly concede before all states certified. And remember - a concession speech means nothing legally; the states still need to certify their counts and choose electors, and that will be done irrespective of the contents, or even the performance, of a concession.

Here's a hint: thousands of hyper-partisans marched through the streets of the capital yesterday, wholeheartedly believing that the election was stolen AND that their man was almost certainly the winner, notwithstanding that he was convincingly defeated.  That is just a symptom of the social fractures that the country is currently experiencing, and a public concession by the loser, encouraging his supporters to accept the result, would, as in the past, lead to at least a modicum of healing.

But let's not pretend this is not the strategy, as ill-conceived as it is; "Stop The Steal" has been in the works since 2015.  It was trotted out in both 2016 and in 2018 as well, but it only finally gained traction in 2020 because the Republicans lost sufficiently to trigger their supporters. Trump has been priming his cult, with claims of upcoming fraud even months before any votes were cast, just as he did in 2016. 

The real reason for alleging fraud was NOT in the expectation of proving actual fraud, but rather that the Trump campaign had hopes of turning at least a couple of state legislatures against their voters' decisions, and the widespread belief in fraud by his supporters would give those legislatures political cover - we even saw suggestions to that effect being made this past week (notwithstanding that many people even here on Ornery correctly predicted this gambit well before election day); but now, given the margins in the popular vote and the EC college, it would seem highly unlikely that any relevant state house would risk the wrath of its electorate to do so.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 09:49:37 AM
”Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”


1,298 investigated, and prosecuted. Cases unprosecuted are absent from the count.

Do you have a source for that? How many were Biden votes vs. Trump votes?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 10:00:46 AM
Donald,

“The real reason for alleging fraud was NOT in the expectation of proving actual fraud, but rather that the Trump campaign had hopes of turning at least a couple of state legislatures against their voters' decisions...“

Since when does paranoid partisan prognostication become a “real reason”?

Trump supporters could easily retort; “... the real reason lefties want a premature concession is that they fear exposure of fraudulent voting.” Trump supporters have already witnessed the uncovering of Obama’s illegal surveillance of the Trump 2016 campaign organization, a Democratic FBI Director’s attempt to tee-up a President-elect for impeachment on his first “courtesy briefing” of the notorious Steel dossier, systemic destruction of FISA protections in a post-election Obama executive order effecting sixteen separate U.S. intelligence agencies, and a fruitless two-year Democratic House impeachment investigation headed by a special counsel who previously sought, and was denied, an FBI Director presidential appointment only hours prior to deputy DOJ Director Rosenstein’s alternate Special Counsel appointment. Senile Robert Muller, as special executor, aided by eighteen “angry“ Democrat prosecutors and lawyers, could not subsequently even follow the contents of his own $35,000,000 report before the House Judiciary, and Intelligence Committees.

No, Biden, as one of those FISA identity “unmasking“ abuse participants, does not merit any special consideration from Trump.

“... and the widespread belief in fraud by his supporters would give those legislatures political cover... “

To the extent any such “cover” exists, it was gifted by Democrats to the Republicans.

“... - we even saw suggestions to that effect being made this past week (notwithstanding that many people even here on Ornery correctly predicted this gambit well before election day)... ”

Yes, Ornery has a national influence that no president should underestimate.  ;)

“ ; but now, given the margins in the popular vote and the EC college, it would seem highly unlikely that any relevant state house would risk the wrath of its electorate to do so.”

Right, “the best laid plans... “

Take a breath, and let the President’s challenges play out under American protocols Canadian. You will have 16% of Alberta’s oil-shale based economy decimated soon enough.

Y-22,

“Do you have a source for that? How many were Biden votes vs. Trump votes?”

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 10:05:59 AM
As usual, Ann Coulter nails it. 

https://anncoulter.com/2020/11/11/the-democrats-guide-to-losing-gracefully/

Democrats often have a big problem accepting the results of elections when they lose.

"... Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore."

It seems like fair play would demand that Democrats at least wait until Dec. 13th before they demand Trump's concession.

That seems like a pretty good date to me too. Unless things change significantly and the needle on evidence moves before then, that would be a good time to seriously consider a Trump concession. Until then, history is in Trump's favor, at least as far as Democrats refusing to concede.

Florida was one race that determined the outcome of the presidency decided by less than 1000 votes. Explain how Trump being behind by more than 10,000 votes in multiple states is anything close to equivalent of that.

Also Cherry, think about what it means that you go along with and parrot its okay for Republicans to do "the worst any Democrat has ever done." Because I will be very disappointed if Biden or any Democrat starts behaving like Trump and citing him as an exemplar of what's allowable behavior.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 10:13:40 AM
Y-22,

“Because I will be very disappointed if Biden or any Democrat starts behaving like Trump and citing him as an exemplar of what's allowable behavior.”

 ::)
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 15, 2020, 10:16:36 AM
”Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”


1,298 investigated, and prosecuted. Cases unprosecuted are absent from the count.

Do you have a source for that? How many were Biden votes vs. Trump votes?
Yoss, that is probably a reference to the Heritage survey that spanned almost 40 years (since 1982, for cases through 2018) - at least the numbers match.  How someone could possibly think that a survey, spanning 36-40 years of elections and last updated months ago, is at all related to the past 11 days is... a mystery.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2020, 10:18:19 AM
I don't think I ever said that Al Gore waiting until his case played out in the courts was a bad thing. All I said was that I don't remember Democrats saying that the way they are saying it for Trump now. The number of votes isn't the only issue. The main issue is getting the count right. Not conceding makes that more likely to happen. If he concedes nobody will care about it anymore. It's good to have some of these cases get settled in court too because they are precedent setting like the ones in Pennsylvania over the late ballots and that will be useful for future elections as well as help state legislatures decide what they want their laws to be so the courts don't try to do it for them.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 10:24:56 AM
”Here's what I really want you to respond to.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”

1,298 investigated, and prosecuted. Cases unprosecuted are absent from the count.

Y-22,

“Do you have a source for that? How many were Biden votes vs. Trump votes?”

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Only 14 of those cases are from 2020. And none of them involve votes in the 2020 election. Most are ballot petition fraud (offering cash for signatures) and a few involve double voting (multiple states), voting illegally for family members, local races decided by a small number of votes, or voting in the wrong jurisdiction. Nothing systematic or widespread.

How is it you're so bad at conveying accurate data? You had to know that wasn't answering the question asked. Or are you just really, really bad at understanding questions and knowing what data you are looking at?

I'll ask again.
How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 10:28:35 AM
Y-22,

The database is current through 2020.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 10:50:19 AM
Y-22,

The database is current through 2020.

You can see I clearly sited the number of cases from 2020.

So your response is instead answering Trump has identified 0 fraudulent votes in 11 (now 12) days of investigating you decided to spout off the combined number of election fraud, ballot petition fraud, voter registration fraud cases from the last 40 years combined.

Did you think you were giving an honest and accurate response the the question asked?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 10:57:01 AM
I don't think I ever said that Al Gore waiting until his case played out in the courts was a bad thing. All I said was that I don't remember Democrats saying that the way they are saying it for Trump now. The number of votes isn't the only issue. The main issue is getting the count right. Not conceding makes that more likely to happen. If he concedes nobody will care about it anymore.

The people who run the elections always care about getting it right. Its just that when vote tallies get shifted by a small amount as they are certifying the results it doesn't make the news because the errors in the initial count and reporting were so much smaller than any margin between the candidates in the races.

Quote
It's good to have some of these cases get settled in court too because they are precedent setting like the ones in Pennsylvania over the late ballots and that will be useful for future elections as well as help state legislatures decide what they want their laws to be so the courts don't try to do it for them.

How do you feel about Trump saying the following?
Quote
He only won in the eyes of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. I concede NOTHING! We have a long way to go. This was a RIGGED ELECTION!

Clearly he isn't saying we just want to clean up the election laws get some resolution on precedent, he's saying the election this was rigged. Somehow all those Democrats rigging the election forgot to mark all their fraudulent ballots for Senate and House races.

Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 11:08:53 AM
Y-22,

“How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”

I doubt that specific instances would be publicized without a charge, and conviction, of the individual involved. Give investigation the time required.

“So your response is instead answering Trump has identified 0 fraudulent votes in 11 (now 12) days of investigating...

Do you seriously believe that “0” cases of voter fraud have been uncovered?

How is your research into Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse coming? Is it still exemplar of the fair administration of justice? Can you give an “honest”, and informed, answer?

For all of the expressed concern regarding anticipated Trump rally violence, it appears Antifa has reappeared on the stage. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/washington-dc-violence-trump-supporters-counterprotesters-brawl-2020-11%3famp

Any comment?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 15, 2020, 11:26:32 AM
noel

So far the  Trump campaign has not been able to produce any evidence of fraud. In over a dozen cases that have been thrown out. Even when Trump supporters have offered $1 million dollars to anyone who can provide evidence of fraud.  No takers.

Trump does not have to concede. People call him a realist. The reality is he will loose. You are correct in that he has not lost. But he will loose. So he should start acting like it. For the good of the country.  But he will not because the good of the country is not something he cares  about.  He cares about one thing and one thing only. Himself.  He is a profoundly selfish man.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 11:27:13 AM
Y-22,

“How many fraudulent votes has Trump's team uncovered in 11 days of investigating?”

I doubt that specific instances would be publicized without a charge, and conviction, of the individual involved. Give investigation the time required.

Really? Trump or Don Jr. wouldn't have tweeted about it like they have tweeted about so many debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories. They only tweet out the false claims but keep the real evidence and cases secret?
Quote
“So your response is instead answering Trump has identified 0 fraudulent votes in 11 (now 12) days of investigating...

Do you seriously believe that “0” cases of voter fraud have been uncovered?

Yes. Otherwise Trump would be tweeting in all caps about them. Unless it was someone caught double voting for him. Then maybe he would have stayed silent.

Quote
How is your research into Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse coming? Is it still exemplar of the fair administration of justice? Can you give an “honest”, and informed, answer?

For all of the expressed concern regarding anticipated Trump rally violence, it appears Antifa has reappeared on the stage. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/washington-dc-violence-trump-supporters-counterprotesters-brawl-2020-11%3famp

Any comment?

You're really looking for a subject change huh? Tough to back up all those voter fraud claims with no evidence so far. How long do you think those investigations will take to find 1 fraudulent vote? Does Trump get to stay president for the entire investigation? I'm sure he can stretch it out for 4 years. Declare some martial law in the meantime. How far will you support him?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 15, 2020, 11:49:33 AM
The heritage database is only useful, if at all, as a tool to identify the types of election malfeasance. 

Take that ~1300 tally reported by the Heritage Foundation database, and contrast it to the approximately 2.3 billion votes cast in federal elections since 1980, and ignoring local elections, runoffs or referenda.  The rate of illegality comes out to less than 1 problematic ballot per million votes cast.  Include non-federal election ballots over the same period and the rate is even less.

Clearly, using the Heritage database as evidence that the prevalence of voter fraud is an issue is a non-starter.  Looking at specific examples, you could argue that for local races, controls do need to be maintained in order to avoid unfair results where votes in the dozens might sway an election.  But even assuming all those problems, identified over a 40 year period and spread across the country over different levels of government, if we assumed all of them to have occurred in a single state, and all during the 2020 presidential election, and even assuming that all the fraud was in a single direction and not offsetting whatsoever, they would still be an order of magnitude too small to affect even the closest race for EC votes in 2020.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 11:53:20 AM
I really don’t understand what it is between the Greeks, and Turks, but that conflict has lasted for about 100 years.

More like 500 or 600. I suppose you would say "100 years" only if you count Turkey from the time of the formation of the modern Turkish state, but obviously the Turkish nation significantly preexisted that one, as the leaders of the Ottoman empire.

Quote
visited that school about ten years ago. In a middle to upper middle class neighborhood that was 95% Caucasian, it is now 5% Caucasian, 44% Latino, 39% Asian, 20% Black, and 5% Pacific Islander. 78% of the student body are from an “economically disadvantaged” household, as determined by student eligibility for California's Reduced-price meal program. Academic achievement is reflected in the change, as is on campus violence.

As long as you don't pretend it's not a racial thing, that's my point: That Republicans don't want Puerto Rico joining because they're Hispanics.

Of course the thing about Puerto Rico is that it's currently not independent. Democracy demands that either it fully participates in American democracy or it becomes independent. Half-way solutions are undemocratic.

Quote
Do you seriously believe that “0” cases of voter fraud have been uncovered?

If it wasn't zero, I'm sure we'd have heard Trump tweeting about it already.

“You seriously, honestly, think that Trump believes what he is saying?“

Yes, and I am surprised that you do not. With his sense of self, how could he not believe what he is saying?

So you think him a person prone to delusions, not just lies, and you still voted for him?

I mean "often delusional" may be the one thing that's worse and more dangerous for his position than "habitual liar".

Quote
“Trump doesn't give a fart about the truth. See ‘Birthergate’ and every other conspiracy theory he's been willing to spew.“

He thought that Ted Cruz’s father was a communist Castro disciple too, because he saw it in the Enquirer.

Why are you assuming Trump really thought it, instead of just pretending to?

Quote
“You're rejecting a democratic result, just because you don't like it, and allegations of fraud are bull*censored* that you yourselves don't believe in.”

Wow, you are strangely invested in America for someone who despises half of its citizens.

Nah, Trump only got 70 million votes. That's like what only 1/5th of American citizens? I'm pretty sure I'd despise equivalent numbers of humanity everywhere.

And up to Trump's presidency, America and its president was the "leader of the free world". Sometimes (e.g. under G.W. Bush) it was the moronic brainless leader of the free world, but the leader of the free world nonetheless.

With Trump, America lost its leadership and became a rogue nation.

Have you noticed that even Trump's supporters don't call the US president the leader of the free world anymore? Not when he's the ally of people like Putin, and he instead acts as the ambassador of his wishes to G7 instead. Not when he's pulling out of major treaties, not when he's treating all its former allies as enemies instead.

Right now the free world is leaderless -- the USA a rogue nation under Trump, UK isolated after the catastrophic Brexit, EU slow-moving and disunited without the institutions yet in place (or likely ever) to hold a united front.

And taking advantage of America's Trump-instigated absense, the imperialist ambitions of nations like Russia, China, Turkey are rising, threatening all their neighbours with war.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 11:58:11 AM
Y-22,

“Really? Trump or Don Jr. wouldn't have tweeted about it like they have tweeted about so many debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories. They only tweet out the false claims but keep the real evidence and cases secret?”

You love the idea of “conspiracy”, which I have never asserted. Would you object to representing my position ”honestly“? Tweeting out regarding a collection of individual cases is not something that I would expect Trump, or Don Jr. to be even informed of, much less “tweeting” about.

“Yes. Otherwise Trump would be tweeting in all caps about them. Unless it was someone caught double voting for him. Then maybe he would have stayed silent.”

You are much more naive than I believed you to be.

“You're really looking for a subject change huh?”

The subject is not new with this post, nor is your evasion. I would like an ”honest, and informed”, if overdue, answer. Can you do that? I would also like Your reaction to Antifa throwing fireworks at restaurant patrons. Do you see how the left might be perceived as a little looney?

“Tough to back up all those voter fraud claims with no evidence so far. How long do you think those investigations will take to find 1 fraudulent vote?”

”Finding” them is less of a time issue than publicizing them.

“Does Trump get to stay president for the entire investigation?”

Do you really want me to believe that you are this naive? You do realize that he is President until January 20th irrespective of election results, correct? What circumstances in the interim dictate regarding Biden will be addressed as necessary, but probably no more than necessary.

“I'm sure he can stretch it out for 4 years. Declare some martial law in the meantime. How far will you support him?”

Okay, you do not care if you sound ridiculous. Not my problem.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
"As long as you don't pretend it's not a racial thing, that's my point: That Republicans don't want Puerto Rico joining because they're Hispanics."

Not true at all and I can almost prove it.

If the Cubans in Cuba voted like the Cubans in Miami then Republicans would love to have them join. In fact, maybe thirty years from now that will be the new Great Compromise. Puerto Rico can join the Union on the condition that Cuba join at the same time.

The point though is that the problem isn't that they're Hispanic but instead that they would likely favor Democrats.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 01:43:47 PM
Aris,

“More like 500 or 600. I suppose you would say ‘100‘ years only if you count Turkey from the time of the formation of the modern Turkish state, but obviously the Turkish nation significantly preexisted that one, as the leaders of the Ottoman empire.”

I entertained a 2,500 year conflict if Darius was used as the starting point, but Persia’s incorporation of ancient Turkey was punctuated by occupation of Byzantines in the west, and Seljuks in the east. So, what is the conflict about?

“As long as you don't pretend it's not a racial thing, that's my point: That Republicans don't want Puerto Rico joining because they're Hispanics.“

Your comment is inherently racist. I have ample reason to object to cultural encroachment, which is entirely unrelated to pigmentation.

“Of course the thing about Puerto Rico is that it's currently not independent. Democracy demands that either it fully participates in American democracy or it becomes independent. Half-way solutions are undemocratic.“

I agree, does Puerto Rico want, and can it survive, “independence”?

“So you think him a person prone to delusions, not just lies, and you still voted for him?“

I think Trump takes personal ownership of whatever he controls, and does so very effectively. I trusted that he would manage America with the same care that he would one of his own properties. He has.

The alternative of a prevaricating kleptomaniac, who has made a business out of dispensing government largesse, was simply not an acceptable option to me.

“I mean ‘often delusional’ may be the one thing that's worse and more dangerous for his position than ‘habitual liar’.”

”Habitual lying” seems to be the norm among politicians. The ability to implement what you call “delusions” is actually quite rare, and valuable.

“Why are you assuming Trump really thought it, instead of just pretending to?”

Because his lack of educational breath in areas outside of real estate development, and showmanship, leave him vulnerable to those kinds of claims. Fortunately, he knows enough to surround himself with people who can compensate for that deficiency, and he is a quick study.

“Nah, Trump only got 70 million votes. That's like what only 1/5th of American citizens? I'm pretty sure I'd despise equivalent numbers of humanity everywhere.“

Polling takes a broader sampling than that, and circa March 24th his approval rating was at 49%. You need to spread the vitriol a little more generously.

“And up to Trump's presidency, America and its president was the ‘leader of the free world’. Sometimes (e.g. under G.W. Bush) it was the moronic brainless leader of the free world, but the leader of the free world nonetheless.“

Yes, the EU does have difficulty paying its debts. America’s decision to step away from the sugar-daddy role was not popular with European leaders, but even Merkel eventually came around when confronted with political realities.

“With Trump, America lost its leadership and became a rogue nation.“

America is the Elephant in the room that only a fool ignores at their peril. Our priorities have shifted from an aging, and flagging Europe, to the Indo-Pacific. The future lies in emerging nations, especially India. Your “world” can follow, or be left behind... their choice.

“Have you noticed that even Trump's supporters don't call the US president the leader of the free world anymore?”

Are platitudes now a measure of world leadership?

“Not when he's the ally of people like Putin... “

You should notify Putin of his status. I am pretty sure that Russia is chafing under Trump’s economic sanctions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/amp/

“... and he instead acts as the ambassador of his wishes to G7 instead. Not when he's pulling out of major treaties, not when he's treating all its former allies as enemies instead.“

Perhaps our allies would deign to start honoring their NATO comments, and speaking of Russian complicity; who is the primary beneficiary of Russian gas development/exportation?

“Right now the free world is leaderless -- the USA a rogue nation under Trump... “

The “free world” is larger than Europe, and if they do not get their stuff together, they will not be part of the free world.

“UK isolated after the catastrophic Brexit, EU slow-moving and disunited without the institutions yet in place (or likely ever) to hold a united front.“

Britain has a strong ally in America. That was a choice which the British made democratically. Perhaps it is the fractured EU that is feeling isolated?

“And taking advantage of America's Trump-instigated absense, the imperialist ambitions of nations like Russia, China, Turkey are rising, threatening all their neighbours with war.”

That sounds like a perfect rationale for the EU to pay their NATO dues, refuse dependence upon Russian fuel, and be more timely in supporting the Wauwei embargo, among other things.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 02:31:47 PM
Aris,

“More like 500 or 600. I suppose you would say ‘100‘ years only if you count Turkey from the time of the formation of the modern Turkish state, but obviously the Turkish nation significantly preexisted that one, as the leaders of the Ottoman empire.”

I entertained a 2,500 year conflict if Darius was used as the starting point, but Persia’s incorporation of ancient Turkey was punctuated by occupation of Byzantines in the west, and Seljuks in the east. So, what is the conflict about?

Persians aren't Turks. Persians are currently the majority of the Iranian nation.
Persia didn't incorporate "ancient Turkey" since Turkey wasn't around at that time, and the Turkish people hadn't migrated there yet -- you mean ancient Anatolia (which is a geographic term).

Quote
So, what is the conflict about?

Not really the thread for it, but sure whatever, let me give it to you in bulletpoints.

I count 6 or 7 major issues, depending on whether you count the naval/airspace issues as one or two.
- Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus (and expulsion of Greek Cypriots), after the Greek military junta attempted a coup in Cyprus in 1974. Turkey argues the presence of its troops there are necessary to protect the Turkish Cypriot population.
- Turkey has declared a casus belli if Greece expand its naval borders in the Aegean to 12 miles. as would be Greece's right by International Maritime Law (which Turkey refuses to recognize)
- Greece currently claims 10 n.m of airspace, while only 6 n.ms of naval space. Turkey acknowledges only 6 n.m of Greek airspace, same as with the naval space.
- Turkey argues that none of Greece's islands have the right to EEZ, and that Greece's EEZ can only extend from the continental parts of Greece. Greece argues that all of Greece's islands deserve full EEZ rights, even the smallest and furthest one (Kastelorizo) (which would severely limit Turkey's EEZ in the Eastern Mediterannean).
- Turkey disputes the actual ownership of certain small uninhabited islands like Imia (Kardak)
- Turkey claims Greece violates the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greece refuses to recognize the minority as "Turkish" at all, and instead calls it a "muslim" minority.
- Turkey demands the demilitarization of certain Greek islands in the Aegean, as was promised in certain treaties of the 1920s and 1930s (I think). Greece refuses to comply.

These are basically the "permanent" issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really "disputes" and "conflicts" in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.

Quote
Britain has a strong ally in America. That was a choice which the British made democratically.

Nobody's disputing that it was a choice the British made democratically, but catastrophic choices can also be made democratically. "Has a strong ally in America"? Not under Trump, no. What makes you think it? Haven't the UK and USA failed so far to make a post-Brexit trade deal either? In what way is the USA and UK allies, during the Trump administration?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 02:55:31 PM
Y-22,

“Really? Trump or Don Jr. wouldn't have tweeted about it like they have tweeted about so many debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories. They only tweet out the false claims but keep the real evidence and cases secret?”

You love the idea of “conspiracy”, which I have never asserted. Would you object to representing my position ”honestly“? Tweeting out regarding a collection of individual cases is not something that I would expect Trump, or Don Jr. to be even informed of, much less “tweeting” about.

I was clearly characterizing Trump's and his son's position there not yours. Why do you think a statement about what Trump and his son's have tweeted was describing your position? Why wouldn't Trump be advised when his team uncovers fraudulent votes? Its literally what he's paying all these lawyers to do, find fraudulent votes and help tip the scales back in his favor. Why wouldn't he be informed of any success they had? 

Quote
“Yes. Otherwise Trump would be tweeting in all caps about them. Unless it was someone caught double voting for him. Then maybe he would have stayed silent.”

You are much more naive than I believed you to be.

I'm not the one who believes Trump believes everything he tweets.

Quote
“Tough to back up all those voter fraud claims with no evidence so far. How long do you think those investigations will take to find 1 fraudulent vote?”

”Finding” them is less of a time issue than publicizing them.

If only Trump had a way to pick up his phone and get a message to 100's of millions of people at once.

Quote
“Does Trump get to stay president for the entire investigation?”

Do you really want me to believe that you are this naive? You do realize that he is President until January 20th irrespective of election results, correct? What circumstances in the interim dictate regarding Biden will be addressed as necessary, but probably no more than necessary.

Yep he's President until Jan 20th at noon. I'm concerned he'll try to pull something in the interim to change that. He clearly admires dictators and strong men and their method of ruling. He is still claiming the election was rigged without evidence. What are you willing to accept from the man if he declares the election illegal, null, tries to retain power. Because he's heading that direction. Maybe the rest of the people around in power ignore him beginning Jan 20th at 12:01pm. But until that time he can cause some damage and refusing to leave quietly isn't a good tradition and is going to leave our country divided for years as Trump acolytes unjustifiably lose faith in elections because their Great Leader fed them a load of BS about a rigged election and voter fraud.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 05:46:48 PM
Aris,

“Nobody's disputing that it was a choice the British made democratically, but catastrophic choices can also be made democratically.”

True, but “catastrophic“ for who? Britain felt the same parasitic drag from E.U. membership that the U.S. feels from NATO membership. There is something to be learned by the E.U. from that.

"Has a strong ally in America"? Not under Trump, no. What makes you think it?“

In 2015, Cameron anticipated a “golden era” of Chinese/U.K. cooperation, including Chinese investment in crucial British infrastructure such as nuclear power plants, and a 5G network. Essentially, the Brits fell for the same “Silk Road Economic Belt" strategy that China has successfully employed in loan-sharking much smaller nations into economic subjugation. This was not going to work for Trump. Cameron thought he could finesse security interoperability objections coming from the U.S., but the arrest in December 2018 of Huawei's CFO in Vancouver sent that strategy into a coffin, then the American chip and technology embargo last May drove nails into the lid.

Johnson placed a 100% ban on Huawei from the U.K.’s 5G infrastructure in July. Downing Street has also worked with Australia, Canada, and the U. S. to impose sanctions on China for its imposition of the new security law in Hong Kong. As Churchill once said; “Americans (British) will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.”

“Haven't the UK and USA failed so far to make a post-Brexit trade deal either? In what way is the USA and UK allies, during the Trump administration?”

The single obstacle to that trade agreement, which Britain vitally needs, is now gone.

“These are basically the ‘permanent’ issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really "disputes" and "conflicts" in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.”

At the root of this, and your bullet points, seem to be the classical East/West cultural divide. Is that a fair conclusion?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 06:28:41 PM
Quote
True, but “catastrophic“ for who?

For the UK, mate.

In November 2015 the british pound was worth up to 1.42 euro -- 5 years later, November 2020 it's now worth 1.12 euro. That's a fall of more than 20% of their currency's value.

And the full consequences of brexit haven't even been seen yet, as UK is still in the customs union until end of the current year.

Quote
Johnson placed a 100% ban on Huawei from the U.K.’s 5G infrastructure in July. Downing Street has also worked with Australia, Canada, and the U. S. to impose sanctions on China for its imposition of the new security law in Hong Kong.

You said that UK has a "strong ally" in America, and you instead gave me examples of UK being an ally of America. I'm asking about the different direction, what has the United States done for the UK?

Quote
The single obstacle to that trade agreement, which Britain vitally needs, is now gone.

The EU is gone, and UK still has no trade deal with the USA. What's the hold up?

Quote
At the root of this, and your bullet points, seem to be the classical East/West cultural divide. Is that a fair conclusion?

No. Not a single issue I mentioned is about the 'classical East/West cultural divide', or indeed about culture at all. It's almost all about resources, borderlines, militaries. I wonder how the f*ck in h*ll you came to a conclusion that it's supposedly about "the classical East/West cultural divide".

Frankly I think your prejudice is showing.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 06:38:47 PM
Y-22,

“I was clearly characterizing Trump's and his son's position there not yours. Why do you think a statement about what Trump and his son's have tweeted was describing your position?”

Their position must, of necessity, match mine, as applied to individual cases of voter fraud.

“Why wouldn't Trump be advised when his team uncovers fraudulent votes? Its literally what he's paying all these lawyers to do, find fraudulent votes and help tip the scales back in his favor. Why wouldn't he be informed of any success they had?”

You are not going to be seeing the fraud that you are asking for without charges, and convictions. The public stuff is institutional ie.; State court constitutional violations, obstructed poll observer access, unpostmarked ballot acceptance, signature match conflicts, etc., none of which is “conspiratorial”, and some of which can only be detected by a hand-recount.

“I'm not the one who believes Trump believes everything he tweets.”

Right, but you think he is going to declare martial law, and barricade the White House.  ;)

“If only Trump had a way to pick up his phone and get a message to 100's of millions of people at once.“

Prosecutions do not work that way.

“Yep he's President until Jan 20th at noon.”

He is President until, at least, noon on January 20th.

“I'm concerned he'll try to pull something in the interim to change that. He clearly admires dictators and strong men and their method of ruling.”

Maybe he will trigger a FISA breach of all intelligence agencies, prompting a bulk release of Biden’s Ukraine/China family business holdings (even if spurious) leaked to all media outlets. They would have to report the story, or Fox News would scoop them. It could be timed to pour cold-water on an incoming president’s first briefing on the matter by Director Wray during an entrapment attempt. Biden’s ability to govern would then be ham-strung, as he is too feeble to actually fight back. It would effectively keep Kamala at bay for the next four years... or until Uncle Joe passes away, whichever comes first.

Hey, are you ever going to explain why FISA abuse is okay if a couple of unrelated perjury convictions emerge from the effort?

“He is still claiming the election was rigged without evidence. What are you willing to accept from the man if he declares the election illegal, null, tries to retain power. Because he's heading that direction.”

Sit down with a bag of pop-corn. Trump is the ultimate entertainer.

“Maybe the rest of the people around in power ignore him beginning Jan 20th at 12:01pm. But until that time he can cause some damage... “

Unfortunately, Trump is already well acquainted with that through his predecessor.

“... and refusing to leave quietly isn't a good tradition and is going to leave our country divided for years... “

You really fail to understand, that horse has already left the barn.

“... as Trump acolytes unjustifiably lose faith in elections because their Great Leader fed them a load of BS about a rigged election and voter fraud.”

Again, you are a little late in concerning yourself with that.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 07:15:19 PM
Aris,

“For the UK, mate. In November 2015 the british pound was worth up to 1.42 euro -- 5 years later, November 2020 it's now worth 1.12 euro. That's a fall of more than 20% of their currency's value.”

A devaluation should help their international trade competitiveness.

“And the full consequences of brexit haven't even been seen yet, as UK is still in the customs union until end of the current year.”

I have no idea of how that will resolve either, but relinking Britain’s economy to the E.U. is foolish if an emphasis on American trade replaces it.

“You said that UK has a "strong ally" in America, and you instead gave me examples of UK being an ally of America. I'm asking about the different direction, what has the United States done for the UK?”

You make this sound like a parent/child relationship. It is not America’s responsibility to “do” something for Britain. Trade agreements are bilateral. Britain’s best hope is that Trump pulls off an upset. We already know about Barry’s position that “Brexit would put UK ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks”.

“No. Not a single issue I mentioned is about the 'classical East/West cultural divide', or indeed about culture at all. It's almost all about resources, borderlines, militaries. I wonder how the f*ck in h*ll you came to a conclusion that it's supposedly about "the classical East/West cultural divide".

This:

Turkey claims Greece violates the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greece refuses to recognize the minority as "Turkish" at all, and instead calls it a "muslim" minority.[/u]

These are basically the "permanent" issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really ‘disputes’ and ‘conflicts’ in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.”


“Frankly I think your prejudice is showing.”

Are you capable of any other criteria of analysis?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 08:09:20 PM
Quote
“Turkey claims Greece violates the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greece refuses to recognize the minority as "Turkish" at all, and instead calls it a "muslim" minority.[/u]

These are basically the "permanent" issues. You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece, or Turkey accusing Greece of assisting Kurdish terrorists, or various other accusations over the years, but those aren't really ‘disputes’ and ‘conflicts’ in the sense that the above bulletpoints are.”

How is any of this Eastern/Western cultural divide, especially if you mean Turkey representing the East and Greece the West?

I mean the *minority* thing is a case where it's Greece that fails to uphold the Western norms of recognizing ethnic minorities, and instead does a thing where it does an "Eastern" thing and treats religion as the identifying mark of a community, rather accepting their own ethnic self-identification.

Not to mention that even if I gave you that point (which I really *censored*ing DON'T) you really focused on one of the 7 bullet points, and you then pretended that all seven bullet points are about your stupid nonsensical East/West cultural divide.

Quote
Are you capable of any other criteria of analysis?

The moment you stop showing your bigoted prejudices. You asked what the Greece/Turkey conflict was about, and then you failed to listen a single word I said, because your head is filled with prejudice and bigotry. Stop listening to the echoes inside your head, and actually *censored*ing read what other people are saying for once.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 15, 2020, 09:04:18 PM
Quote
Stop listening to the echoes inside your head, and actually *censored*ing read what other people are saying for once.
When everybody is telling you the same thing, noel, maybe it's time to at least consider the point being made...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2020, 10:48:02 PM
Y-22,

“I was clearly characterizing Trump's and his son's position there not yours. Why do you think a statement about what Trump and his son's have tweeted was describing your position?”

Their position must, of necessity, match mine, as applied to individual cases of voter fraud.

Seriously? You must have exactly the same opinion as the president and his son's to each individual claim of voter fraud they make?

Quote
“Why wouldn't Trump be advised when his team uncovers fraudulent votes? Its literally what he's paying all these lawyers to do, find fraudulent votes and help tip the scales back in his favor. Why wouldn't he be informed of any success they had?”

You are not going to be seeing the fraud that you are asking for without charges, and convictions.

Before there are charges there is evidence of a crime. Trump's out finding all this crime and fraud why can't we get a sneak peak.

Quote
The public stuff is institutional ie.; State court constitutional violations, obstructed poll observer access, unpostmarked ballot acceptance, signature match conflicts, etc., none of which is “conspiratorial”, and some of which can only be detected by a hand-recount.

So now its there is no concern about fraud (except maybe the signature match conflicts) but Trump's going to try to get a bunch of ballots tossed out on technicalities. I'm for upholding the law and rooting out real fraud but looking for any reason to get rid of ballots not cast for you isn't a democratic ideal.

Quote
“I'm not the one who believes Trump believes everything he tweets.”

Right, but you think he is going to declare martial law, and barricade the White House.  ;)

That was half sarcasm, half worst case of what I think Trump is capable of. I don't expect it. But Trump has the temperament to try. I think he would if the military and police forces would go along with him. Let's say I have more confidence in our military and law enforcement to make it a big concern but I fully believe Trump would love to see enough violence on the streets that he could try to trigger the insurrection act.

Quote
Quote
”Finding” them is less of a time issue than publicizing them.
“If only Trump had a way to pick up his phone and get a message to 100's of millions of people at once.“

Prosecutions do not work that way.

I added back in the statement I was directly responding too. Prosecutions don't work that way but publicizing does.
Quote
“Yep he's President until Jan 20th at noon.”

He is President until, at least, noon on January 20th.

“I'm concerned he'll try to pull something in the interim to change that. He clearly admires dictators and strong men and their method of ruling.”

Maybe he will trigger a FISA breach of all intelligence agencies, prompting a bulk release of Biden’s Ukraine/China family business holdings (even if spurious) leaked to all media outlets. They would have to report the story, or Fox News would scoop them. It could be timed to pour cold-water on an incoming president’s first briefing on the matter by Director Wray during an entrapment attempt. Biden’s ability to govern would then be ham-strung, as he is too feeble to actually fight back. It would effectively keep Kamala at bay for the next four years... or until Uncle Joe passes away, whichever comes first.

Shrug, if Trump on his way out the door declassifies documents exposing Biden's alleged corruption then I'll enjoy watching Republicans decide if they want to impeach him and welcome in President Harris. Note I don't think any such documents exist.

Quote
Hey, are you ever going to explain why FISA abuse is okay if a couple of unrelated perjury convictions emerge from the effort?

No, not on this thread. Your just looking to change the subject from the abject lack of evidence of voter fraud to anything else. You jumped off with Aris on the history of conflicts in Greece and you want to jump off and rehash some old ground on FISA warrants here.

Quote
“He is still claiming the election was rigged without evidence. What are you willing to accept from the man if he declares the election illegal, null, tries to retain power. Because he's heading that direction.”

Sit down with a bag of pop-corn. Trump is the ultimate entertainer.

So Trump declaring an election null and void is entertainment? We have different ideas of what constitutes entertainment.

Quote
“... and refusing to leave quietly isn't a good tradition and is going to leave our country divided for years... “

You really fail to understand, that horse has already left the barn.

“... as Trump acolytes unjustifiably lose faith in elections because their Great Leader fed them a load of BS about a rigged election and voter fraud.”

Again, you are a little late in concerning yourself with that.

Suppose so since Trump has been planting those seeds for four years. Odd he didn't spend more time as president working on securing elections.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 15, 2020, 10:57:16 PM
Aris,

“How is any of this Eastern/Western cultural divide, especially if you mean Turkey representing the East and Greece the West?“

That was the right question.

“I mean the *minority* thing is a case where it's Greece that fails to uphold the Western norms of recognizing ethnic minorities, and instead does a thing where it does an "Eastern" thing and treats religion as the identifying mark of a community, rather accepting their own ethnic self-identification.“

Technically, Islam, missed the classical era altogether.

By “classical” I was thinking more along the lines of Greek/Persian comparisons, which from historical Greek sources cite political structure alone as differentiating Easterners ”slaves“ to monarchs, and themselves, the self-governed. Aeschylus, Aristotle, and Alexander the Great may have been representing Greek ethnicity from a “bigoted” perspective, and slavery was certainly present in their culture, but their basic concept was correct, just not universally applied. Islam does happen to be undemocratic, and that is not an “echo inside (my) head”, it is an empirical fact.

Can you give me an answer on that basis? Does Greece violate the religious and ethnic rights of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace? If so, how, and why?

“Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece”

Directing 3.6 million Syrian refugees to Greek points of entry, more recently mercenaries recruited from their ranks, does seem like a cultural assault. What are these people doing when they arrive in Greece?

“Not to mention that even if I gave you that point (which I really *censored*ing DON'T) you really focused on one of the 7 bullet points, and you then pretended that all seven bullet points are about your stupid nonsensical East/West cultural divide.“

“It's almost all about resources, borderlines, and militaries“

It is never “all about resources, borderlines, and militaries”, but if that is what you have, fine.

“The moment you stop showing your bigoted prejudices. You asked what the Greece/Turkey conflict was about, and then you failed to listen a single word I said, because your head is filled with prejudice and bigotry. Stop listening to the echoes inside your head, and actually *censored*ing read what other people are saying for once.“

I read, and understood, what you said Aris.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 15, 2020, 11:39:10 PM
No, I'm not enabling your derail anymore.

You maliciously refuse to listen.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 12:14:37 AM
Y-22,

“Seriously? You must have exactly the same opinion as the president and his son's to each individual claim of voter fraud they make?”

Individual fraud will not be made public, especially if uncovered by an attorney, without prosecution and conviction. On that I am certain their opinion matches mine.

“Before there are charges there is evidence of a crime. Trump's out finding all this crime and fraud why can't we get a sneak peak.“

Nope.

“So now its there is no concern about fraud (except maybe the signature match conflicts) but Trump's going to try to get a bunch of ballots tossed out on technicalities.”

No, read what I wrote.

“I'm for upholding the law and rooting out real fraud but looking for any reason to get rid of ballots not cast for you isn't a democratic ideal.”

Nor is that what I, or Trump, have said, or implied. I appreciate your concern for the rule of law though, it is just impossible believe you.

“That was half sarcasm, half worst case of what I think Trump is capable of. I don't expect it. But Trump has the temperament to try. I think he would if the military and police forces would go along with him. Let's say I have more confidence in our military and law enforcement to make it a big concern but I fully believe Trump would love to see enough violence on the streets that he could try to trigger the insurrection act.“

That is your best response to Antifa throwing fireworks at restaurant patrons?

“I added back in the statement I was directly responding too. Prosecutions don't work that way but publicizing does.“

Okay?

“Shrug, if Trump on his way out the door declassifies documents exposing Biden's alleged corruption then I'll enjoy watching Republicans decide if they want to impeach him and welcome in President Harris. Note I don't think any such documents exist.“

Yes, I knew you felt that way, and certainly Biden would be better neutralized as a political cypher, than an ex-president. For the record; what Barry ”declassified“ did not “exist“. That failed prevent a release under the aegis of “... all intelligence sources agree”. Biden already has problems on that count.

So, does using government bureaucracy to neutralize an election bother you, or is it only a problem when you do not like the results?

“No, not on this thread. Your just looking to change the subject from the abject lack of evidence of voter fraud to anything else.”

What thread will you answer it on?

“You jumped off with Aris on the history of conflicts in Greece and you want to jump off and rehash some old ground on FISA warrants here.”

“Rehash”, as in you failed to answer the question before, and you’re stickin’ with your story. That does not sound like a “jump-off“ if you are serious about understanding why Republicans are standing by Trump. (Which you have asked me repeatedly)

“So Trump declaring an election null and void is entertainment? We have different ideas of what constitutes entertainment.“

I do not see how that would work constitutionally, but I am certain what he ultimately does will be entertaining. I am already anticipating your principled indignation.

“Suppose so since Trump has been planting those seeds for four years. Odd he didn't spend more time as president working on securing elections.”

Supreme Court decisions are a fairly effective means of securing elections, don’t you agree?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 12:20:15 AM
Aris,

“You maliciously refuse to listen.”

Now that is a novel form of malice. Possibly there is a deficiency in your responses?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 16, 2020, 12:49:13 AM
Aris,

“You maliciously refuse to listen.”

Now that is a novel form of malice. Possibly there is a deficiency in your responses?

No, there wasn't.

You're so ignorant of Greece-Turkey history that you were confusing Turks and Persians, and then you had the audacity of trying to teach me lessons about what the conflict really is about, rather than hearing me. *censored* off, you ignorant bigoted *censored*.

And btw, Greece has never had a single incident of Islamist terrorism (despite having about a million muslim immigrants since the early 1990s), we have had a LOT of Christian genocidal mass-murderers though. Enough of them that they participated in the Serb-bosnian genocide at Srebnenica, and became 3rd national party for a time, before getting thrown into jail very recently for being a criminal gang.

And those same neonazis (literal worshippers of Adolf Hitler) also heartily supported Trump btw.

That will, of course, not give you pause. Nor will you wonder why neonazis across the world loved Trump.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 01:21:36 AM
Aris,

“You're so ignorant of Greece-Turkey history that you were confusing Turks and Persians... “

No, I let your interpolation slide out of courtesy. You did not carefully read what I said, and there was no confusion of Persians with the Turks. That was your contribution. There is a 2,500 year old history of conflict at the Bosporus, and it is not a reach to look for ongoing cultural causes. As you are aware, race and ethnicity are not the same thing.

“... and then you had the audacity of trying to teach me lessons about what the conflict really is about, rather than hearing me. *censored* off, you ignorant bigoted *censored*.“

So that is what this is about, my ”audacity“.

“And btw, Greece has never had a single incident of Islamist terrorism (despite having about a million muslim immigrants since the early 1990s), we have had a LOT of Christian genocidal mass-murderers though. Enough of them that they participated in the Serb-bosnian genocide at Srebnenica, and became 3rd national party for a time, before getting thrown into jail very recently for being a criminal gang.“

Thanks, that type of feedback would have been appropriate earlier. So what are these Syrian “mercenaries” dong while in Greece?

“And those same neonazis (literal worshippers of Adolf Hitler) also heartily supported Trump btw.”

That settles it, Trump must be a ‘fascist‘, right?

“That will, of course, not give you pause. Nor will you wonder why neonazis across the world loved Trump.“

You must really need to get this off your chest. How many neonazis across the world do you know?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 01:54:09 AM
I appreciate the lead Aris, but you do not need to respond. I think that I answered my question. :

“Thanks, that type of feedback would have been appropriate earlier. So what are these Syrian ‘mercenaries’ dong while in Greece?“

Answer:

“Radical Islamist groups could participate in low-risk assignments, such as recruitment, funding, propaganda and training in the country (Greece).”

“In recent years, Greece has been used as a transit country by individuals who travel to and from conflict zones with ‘unclear motives’. Only in 2016, 15 suspected Jihadists were arrested transiting through Greece, according to the recent Europol annual report.”

https://www.eliamep.gr/en/γιατί-το-ισλαμικό-κράτος-δεν-έχει-πλήξ/
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 02:11:58 AM
Apparently, my browser cannot read Greek links. The author of “EXPLAINING THE ABSENCE OF ISLAMIST TERRORIST ATTACKS AND RADICALISATION IN GREECE” is *Dr Dimitris Skleparis, Research Associate at the University of Glasgow
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Aris Katsaris on November 16, 2020, 08:14:56 AM
Yours, noel, is exactly the monomaniacal racist obsession, plus the dishonest failure to hear anything that the other person is saying that I fully expect from a Trump supporter.

From your fake pretense to supposedly care about what the Greek-Turkey conflict is about, to deliberately trying to twist it that it's about immigrants and a supposed cultural conflict, even when I'm telling you it's not, because that's just what your particular brand of Trumpist evil demands. Oh, man, Syrian jihadists! What would you do without Syrian jihadists. Well, Greece and Turkey would still be fighting, since Syrian jihadists would not even be a footnote in a 100-page volume about the Greece-Turkey conflict, but you don't care about that. You'll focus on "Syrian jihadists", because that's what your prejudice demands.

Your comparisons between Turkey and Persia (please do include the Trojans too next time) are still absurd, whether you try to put it in cultural, ethnic or racial terms. If you were both sane and honest you could have tried geography instead, and seen why a sea-based military power makes sense to hold power in the islands and hellenic peninsula, while a land-based military power makes sense to hold power in Anatolia itself - but you wouldn't do that, because that wouldn't allow you to be *censored*ty towards people based on their ancestry, which is your endgoal here, not achieving actual understanding.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: msquared on November 16, 2020, 08:17:38 AM
Ok so the Trump law suit in PA is basically asking the courts to throw out ballots that were cured (had small defects found before tabulation that the voter was allowed to correct, which is allowed by PA state law).  It seems that Democratic controlled counties did a much better job of doing that than Republican controlled counties. So the admin is suing the Democratic controlled counties, saying it is unfair.

They followed the rules and it is unfair?  Why are they not suing the Republican controlled counties for not doing their job correctly?

This suit, along with 99% of the others will get tossed or decided against the admin.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 16, 2020, 08:21:00 AM
”Finding” them is less of a time issue than publicizing them.

Quote
Prosecutions don't work that way but publicizing does.“

Can you not read your own words? Did you mean prosecuting instead of publicizing the first time?

Quote
“No, not on this thread. Your just looking to change the subject from the abject lack of evidence of voter fraud to anything else.”

What thread will you answer it on?
“Rehash”, as in you failed to answer the question before, and you’re stickin’ with your story. That does not sound like a “jump-off“ if you are serious about understanding why Republicans are standing by Trump. (Which you have asked me repeatedly)

Rehash, Russia, Ukraine, and FISA have had multiple threads that ran at length here. No reason to rehash those discussions when we're talking about election results and alleged election fraud.

Quote

“So Trump declaring an election null and void is entertainment? We have different ideas of what constitutes entertainment.“

I do not see how that would work constitutionally, but I am certain what he ultimately does will be entertaining. I am already anticipating your principled indignation.

And I don't believe Trump has any respect for the constitution. Luckily I think other responsible people in power will ignore any illegal orders he issues.

Quote
“Suppose so since Trump has been planting those seeds for four years. Odd he didn't spend more time as president working on securing elections.”

Supreme Court decisions are a fairly effective means of securing elections, don’t you agree?

No. I think getting states and counties more money to implement best practices in data management and election procedures. After Trump claimed 3+ million fraudulent ballots were cast for Clinton in 2016 he should have spent the last 4 years making sure the 2020 election couldn't have fraud at that imaginary level.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: yossarian22c on November 16, 2020, 08:39:56 AM
Y-22,

“Seriously? You must have exactly the same opinion as the president and his son's to each individual claim of voter fraud they make?”

Individual fraud will not be made public, especially if uncovered by an attorney, without prosecution and conviction. On that I am certain their opinion matches mine.

Why won't voter fraud be made public? Why would a crime be kept secret until the prosecution and conviction of the perpetrator?

You're getting into a circular reasoning argument here. There is no evidence of voter fraud because they would keep all the real evidence secret. When will we see anything?

How do you feel about the Dominion claims? How about the 138,000 votes in Michigan?
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: DonaldD on November 16, 2020, 09:03:47 AM
So...
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on November 16, 2020, 09:13:08 AM
Y-22,

“Seriously? You must have exactly the same opinion as the president and his son's to each individual claim of voter fraud they make?”

Individual fraud will not be made public, especially if uncovered by an attorney, without prosecution and conviction. On that I am certain their opinion matches mine.

Why won't voter fraud be made public? Why would a crime be kept secret until the prosecution and conviction of the perpetrator?

You're getting into a circular reasoning argument here. There is no evidence of voter fraud because they would keep all the real evidence secret. When will we see anything?

How do you feel about the Dominion claims? How about the 138,000 votes in Michigan?

What’s more remarkable is the same people who are willing to take the allegations of mass fraud purely on faith will argue zealously that voter suppression isn’t real despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

The GOP has become a religion.
Title: Re: Election Results
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2020, 10:09:28 AM
Aris,

“Yours, noel, is exactly the monomaniacal racist obsession, plus the dishonest failure to hear anything that the other person is saying that I fully expect from a Trump supporter.“

And alleged “racist” obsession between Greeks and Turks, or Turks and Iranians? You are being moronic. There is a shared genetic origin between the latter two, and the Hellenes made a significant contribution to Turkish ancestry prior to the arrival of the Selijuks. Racial makeup is secondary in any case if we are looking at ethnicity, which is where issues underlying conflict are found.

“From your fake pretense to supposedly care about what the Greek-Turkey conflict is about... “

There was nothing “fake” about my question, and your explanation remains superficial. You are basically saying that there is conflict, because there is conflict. That does not really tell me anything.

“... to deliberately trying to twist it that it's about immigrants and a supposed cultural conflict, even when I'm telling you it's not... “

You stated; “You could inflate this count by listing incidental issues like Greece accusing Turkey weaponising the movement of refugees towards Greece.