Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - cherrypoptart

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 12, 2020, 03:00:35 AM »
Just looking at standing and jurisdiction, let's take it to the extreme for a moment to make a point.

If, and that's the big IF for hypothetical purposes, not saying this happened, but if a state violated it's own election laws and permitted or even encouraged massive voter fraud and then the government of that state along with the state supreme court did nothing about it and said it's all good, then our Supreme Court is saying that there is nothing any other state can do about it.

That seems dangerous. There are no legal remedies if a state itself turns a blind eye to massive voter fraud. All other states just have to let their voters get disenfranchised in the Presidential election and nobody has any further say in the matter.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I still haven't seen the evidence to prove it. But the Supreme Court smackdown means it's over without any really satisfying redress of grievances.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 09:58:14 PM »
"This isn't the field.  This is a week after the Superbowl and you're still complaining that somebody cheated or the refs were crooked..."

I disagree with that. The gravity challenged lady is warming up but she's not singing yet. This is like those videos where the guy is coasting into the finish line with his hands raised and a spunky challenger comes up from behind and wins it. The celebrating too early situations.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 09:50:51 PM »
If Trump loses 9-0 then that helps solidify the legitimacy of Biden's victory. That should be a good thing. As for self-respect I think we can all agree that bird flew the coop a long time ago.

It seems like a lot of these voting changes were done rather hastily and perhaps improperly using the excuse of Covid. So the obvious question is if we were not in the midst of a pandemic would those exact same changes done in the exact same way have been legal? And the next obvious question is if not then are there provisions in the state laws that allow for making those voting changes in the irregular ways they were made because of a pandemic? And if both of those questions are answered in the negative then it seems like there is a good case that the Republicans arguments have some merit. Now is that a case for state supreme courts or for THE Supreme Court? That's another issue. In other words even if the Supreme Court says it doesn't have jurisdiction or it says the plaintiffs don't have standing, that doesn't necessarily mean everything about this election was done properly. Then it just gets political. I'm not sure why Democrats are complaining about that, at least while trying so hard to keep a straight face, after all their efforts to delegitimize the last election using the Russian collusion hoax. Well I guess I do understand why actually, but pot meet kettle.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 07:22:15 PM »
Aris Katsaris

"The Republicans just want to tell their Trumpist voters that they did their best to fight the 'fraud', so not participating in this would have looked bad for them, and participating in it looks good, even if SCOTUS also turns it down in a single sentence."

I agree that this is what they are doing and this is also what they should do.

What is there to lose?

And when the dust clears and Biden is the President then at least the Republicans can truly say that they left it all on the field.

And sometimes the hail Mary pass actually works. Can't count on it and don't expect it; but if there is no other way then may as well go for it.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 05:54:34 PM »
Each state may have different procedures for changing it's voting laws. One state may require a constitutional amendment. Another may let the legislature do it. For all I know one may let the governor do it. I admit I don't know. Again, the point is that each state must at least follow it's own laws. So though I don't know the details and this is just off the cuff, just because one state did something and another state did the same thing doesn't necessarily mean they both did it legally. That's just an example though of what one aspect of the lawsuit might be. That's actually somewhat separate from the fraud angle.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 05:29:18 PM »
I think the point is that though states can within reasonable limits decide how they run their own elections they can't just do anything they want however they want to do it and they must follow certain rules and procedures, especially their own rules and procedures within their own state. And if they want to change the rules they must follow their own processes to do so. We saw the Supreme Court rule against Trump because of exactly that, supposedly not following the proper procedures to do something even if he had the power to do it. By the same token, maybe states had the power to do some of the things they did but if they didn't go about it the right way, for instance with an amendment to their state constitution instead of simple legislative action. That would be a huge mistake.

We saw with DACA how much of a stickler for procedure Roberts pretends to be so we'll see what happens here. The states played very fast and very loose with the election this time around, pretty much just saying, "Because Covid." Did the states really make all the changes they made the right way they needed to be made? Were all of those changes legal? We'll see.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: December 09, 2020, 04:36:32 PM »
As predicted. Biden is the superspreader.

“There are going to be caravans, and in the coming weeks it will increase,” said Jose Luis Gonzalez, coordinator of the Guatemala Red Jesuita con Migrantes, a non-governmental organization. “People are no longer scared of the coronavirus. They’re going hungry, they’ve lost everything and some towns are still flooded.”

Biden has pledged to abolish many of the migration policies of Donald Trump, including prolonged detention and separation of families, which were designed to deter illegal migration. This encourages more impoverished Central Americans to make the trip and test the Biden administration, said Gonzalez.

“When there is a change in government in the U.S. or Mexico, caravans start to move because they are testing the waters to see how authorities respond,” he said. “What they see is that the one who said he was going to build a wall and hated Latinos is on his way out.”

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 08:08:35 AM »
I follow the news pretty well and if I couldn't tell you who was running as third party candidates I seriously doubt most other Americans could either. It's very clear that the media was determined not to give Americans the information necessary to make any informed decisions about third party options. All information about them was self-censored by unstated understating. I can understand if Americans got savvy to the fact that there is a strong argument to be made that voting third party can end up giving you less of what you want compared to voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't disagree. But that doesn't explain why the media pretty much didn't cover any third party options this time around, at all. That's a completely separate issue. The mainstream media did it's level best to rig the election as much as possible in favor of Biden. They refused to report anything negative about him and exaggerated or outright lied about Trump to make him look like the epitome of pure evil.

Just as a test, without looking it up, who knows who was running as third party candidates? No need to answer really. It can be on the honor system. But everyone can decide for themselves whether their experience makes my point or not.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 09, 2020, 01:23:51 AM »

"3rd party voters really disappeared going from around 185k to 50k."

That was another interesting thing about this election and one may wonder if after seeing how Jill Stein probably cost Hillary the election in 2016 if no third parties were running this election or was it instead that our mainstream media that was determined to do anything and everything they possibly could to help Biden win just refused to report, at all, on any third party candidates this cycle. I've never seen an election like this without any coverage of third parties. I find it harder to believe that they suddenly ceased to exist than I do that the media sucked up all their oxygen and suffocated them all to death because reporting reality would cost Biden votes.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 08, 2020, 11:25:12 AM »
I heard on the radio some caller said something that I found interesting. It would be nice if we had some real investigations into voter fraud. He pointed out that we had Congressional hearings on juicing in baseball. We had 19 FBI agents go down to investigate a pull rope in a NASCAR garage. What do we have as far as investigations into voter fraud. It looks like just the bare minimum and actually not even that.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 07, 2020, 02:19:50 AM »

"Basham also touched on mail-in and absentee ballots, which 65million Americans used to vote this election.

He discussed a 'historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots.'

'Rejection rates, which in the primaries earlier this year were well into the double-digits and which historically have often been very, very high in these key swing states, or at least in the key swing counties, we're seeing rejection rates of less than 1%, often very close to to zero,' said Basham.

'Given the increase in absentee balloting and the lack of experience that most of the new voters and those doing the counting would have with those ballots, it is implausible, to put it politely, that that figure would be as low as it was."


Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Also, is it true that millions of people split their votes and voted for Biden at the top and Republicans more locally? That seems off. Sure a lot of people do it but this many?

I'm not convinced yet of the massive voter fraud in Georgia but if that turns out to be true I completely disagree with the idea that it shouldn't matter that much if it wasn't enough to change the result and it doesn't affect other states. It affects everything. It would be an unprecedented paradigm shift.

It would mean that everything we've been told by the Democrats has been a lie. And if that happened in Georgia and they got away with it this long it means that in more heavily Democrat strongholds they would never get caught at all.

Going back to Lance Armstrong, one point I was trying to make was that when someone is caught cheating it's often impossible to precisely quantify how much that affected the results because you can bet they weren't caught cheating every time they cheated and in all the ways they cheated. Like someone cheating at cards. So you're playing all night and they are clearing everyone out and then one hand you catch them with a card up their sleeve. Do you just say well he loses that hand? Do you say we can't assume he cheated the whole time? We can't assume he cheated in other places on other days in other ways? It doesn't work that way. If the scheme alleged in Georgia actually happened we have to assume that it happened elsewhere as well. That Democrats would so casually brush off a crime of that magnitude against the faith in our election process is telling in and of itself. I see a lot who wouldn't brush it off and understand it would be an earthshaking event and that's good. It would be.

I still doubt it happened though. Perhaps mostly because I just don't want to get my hopes up.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: December 06, 2020, 08:47:07 AM »
"The next President who tries to openly defy the Supreme Court in such a manner, even with the support of Congress, may get an unpleasant surprise."

I wonder about that, for instance what if the Supreme Court finds DACA unconstitutional? Would it surprise anyone to see Democrats openly defying the Supreme Court then? After all, they have no respect for the law anyway, certainly not immigration law. It's funny seeing people say how important it is to respect the rule of law when they enthusiastically voted in a guy whose main promise was to break the law starting on Day One.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 08:03:44 PM »
Wayward Son

"No, it isn't, because Biden won because of the votes he got."

The point is once cheating is determined often times there is no way to know for sure the exact extent to which it influenced things.

In this case the Democrats will insist that we just assume that the only votes that were fraudulent were the votes that we can prove were fraudulent even though they set up the system to make it almost impossible to prove voter fraud at all.

Like for Lance we just assume that his doping only added a few minutes to his time but since he won by much more than that it didn't actually affect the outcome. I have no idea about his margins of victory by the way but it's just an example. The point is some people like to give too much benefit of the doubt even when it's proven it isn't deserved. It's also interesting that even though now it's proven that Lance cheated he still won anyway. Maybe he was stripped of his titles or whatever but he still lives in a huge mansion and has a lot of money and fame and his foundation and got to enjoy decades of it before he found out. Maybe to some people it seems like in the end he didn't get away with it but to me it doesn't seem like that at all. Same thing with stealing elections. And Obama's unConstitutional executive orders like DACA. There is very little justice in this world.

I'll just leave the Russian collusion hoax alone I suppose. I can understand how people can see it differently and I appreciate that but people can just go round and round on it and we all have here before and it won't get anyone anywhere. Also, this may not be the thread for it except to note that the same type of thing is likely to happen with the issue of voter fraud. We'll all just go round and round again and even after the bombshells drop that won't really change anything.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 06:03:07 PM »

Okay, to be thorough I changed the accusation a little bit. Just checked Snopes. I changed it to Trump saying that the government spied on his campaign which more generally is what he was saying. Trump actually said Obama did it and Snopes says there is no proof directly tying Obama to our government spying on the Trump campaign, but more broadly our government did spy on the Trump campaign. Trump was right about that. To me it doesn't matter so much whether Obama ordered it or not and just to bring it back around to massive voter fraud it doesn't matter whether or not Biden knew anything about it. I don't think he did but he sometimes doesn't know what state he's in or what office he's running for either.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 05:51:10 PM »
A distinction without a difference. I understand people will quibble but our government had phone recordings of Trump campaign people. I know the details and how it can be spun the other way but what our government did to the Trump campaign and the way it did it vindicated everything Trump said. I can understand why people would think no it didn't and that's fine. It will probably be the same way with massive voter fraud. Distinctions without a difference.

General Comments / Re: What to do with actual election fraud?
« on: December 04, 2020, 05:46:35 PM »
If we discover massive voter fraud but it's said that it wasn't enough to overturn the election so Biden wins anyway, is that anything like Lance Armstrong being proven to have massively cheated but all of his victories stand because it's determined that he would have won anyway?

I'll also observe that the constant media refrain of "Trump alleges without any evidence..." is the exact same one we heard when Trump was alleging "without any evidence" that our government spied on his campaign and it turned out to be quite true.

If we find massive voter fraud in Georgia that was enough to decide the Georgia election that is as Biden might say, "a big bleeping deal." I've always thought and it may prove to be the case again that one of the main issues with this type of massive voter fraud is that even if you prove it once it's done then it's done and the election will stand. Even if people go to prison they'll wear their prison terms as a badge of honor and that is no disincentive when the stakes of the election have been framed as the Democrats have framed them, with Trump being put up there with Hitler as one of the most evil demagogues of the ages.

So my bottom line answer to what is actually going to be done in this case is essentially nothing.

Maybe people go to prison. Maybe systems get changed a little. But if there was massive voter fraud and yet the decision stands that in my book that means what I've said all along, even if you get caught you still get away with it in the big picture.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 30, 2020, 06:47:15 AM »
Well it's one thing to have a situation in which all qualified potential hires are considered regardless of their gender or race and then the women win out. It's quite another what Biden appears to be doing which is to completely disqualify people based specifically on their race and gender. At least we're being honest about it now with Biden in charge. It's okay to be racist. In fact, it's fantastic. As long as you are racist against whites and especially white men. Then the media will laud your racism and gender discrimination. Maybe he'll win a Nobel Prize for it.

On the other hand, this probably saves a lot of white men a lot of time. At least now they don't have to waste their efforts in a futile attempt even applying. That can be annoying too. Most government jobs and many private sector jobs have to make a big show about letting everyone apply even when they've already decided who is getting the job. It's annoying and depressing getting your hopes up only to find out later that you never had a chance.

I'll confess that it was telling that Kavanaugh did the same thing by hiring only females for his law clerks. Is that really such a good thing? It seems like that's big time gender discrimination too and also gives the appearance of even maybe being a little pervy, only wanting females working under you.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 30, 2020, 01:26:48 AM »
Here's another prediction for the Biden Presidency:

White men need not apply.

Sure he may put in a few as tokens but that'll be about it.

Elections have consequences and all that I suppose.

But one line in this story really tickled my funny bone. The author has a real British penchant for understatement along with a certain dry wit with this keen observation:

"The choice of a number of Obama administration veterans — many with deep relationships with the Washington press corps — also suggests a return to a more congenial relationship with the press."

"...  a return to a more congenial relationship with the press." You can say that again.

General Comments / Re: Census Shenanigans
« on: November 30, 2020, 12:49:37 AM »
Well the census is in the news again.

And going back to counting tourists for just a moment, we should also remember that hundreds of thousands if not millions of the illegals here came on tourist visas and just never left. An argument could be made that they are technically still just tourists.

But if people don't like the tourist angle then what about prisoners of war? If we captured thousands of prisoners of war and had them in custody for years until the war is over then are they counted in the census?

They would actually have more legal status than illegals and most of them could very well be guilty of no crimes at all. Just regular soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

What does our Constitution say about that?


Do we have any predictions on how the Supreme Court will actually rule on this issue? It should be coming up pretty soon.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they will rule the way I want them to rule. Legal immigrants should be counted in the census but people in America illegally should not. They are invaders, not immigrants.

Which brings up another possibility too for those insisting that everyone living in America needs to be counted in the census.

What about straight out invaders? If we were invaded by a hostile army should they be counted in the census? Not to name any names but just to pull a random one out of a hat, if China invaded Hawaii and put ten million soldiers there and they stayed there for twenty five years as a hostile occupation force and then after that we gave them the boot and took it back over, during those two census periods should their ten million soldiers be counted in our census and give Hawaii more Representation in the House? Sure, that's admittedly some big time argumentum ad absurdum, but it makes the point that it's not necessarily true that everyone living in America at the time of the census should be counted for apportionment, and that's a case in which arguing that they should seems like it would be even more absurd.

That may seem ridiculous and hopefully it always will be just hypothetical but it's still an important stop for the logic train because it illustrates the point that it doesn't make necessarily make sense to count everyone living in America for the census. There are exceptions.

We'll see what the Supreme Court says soon enough. My guess is it will be 5-4 in favor of Trump with Roberts as usual dissenting in some oddball way that makes absolutely no sense at all while the total leftists on the Court do their usual thing as well, ruling the way they feel like ruling just because they feel like it but unlike Roberts at least their approach will be consistent. The only consistency to Roberts in most of these types of cases is his total commitment to absurdity.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 09:05:32 PM »
I suppose one obvious line of inquiry would be did Chavez win his elections fair and square then using the same company or subsidiary?

Or did the same company or its subsidiary that we used help Chavez to cheat and win but played it fair and square in our own election, perhaps removing the backdoor from the code in the software they used for the U.S.?

Or was it never there in the first place and Chavez didn't rig the vote using it, perhaps winning fairly or cheating some other way?

That's a slightly separate issue from whether or not they flipped any votes in our election. Have they ever flipped any votes in any election anywhere?

Or is that so called Chavez election witness to the vote flipping full of malarkey?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 06:17:18 PM »
Hannity in a re-run show today was talking about a guy who helped develop the software for Chavez to make sure his election could be rigged. The hand recounts matching the system counts is good enough in my book. Hannity didn't mention anything about all the third party testing of course. So one last question might be was that guy talking about the Chavez election just outright lying when he said the software had the capability to switch votes and that capability was used to help Chavez steal the election?

Apparently, that was the kraken.

"This week, Powell finally made an offering and it quickly sunk to the bottom of the sea. On Tuesday, allied attorney Lin Wood released “the kraken” — a heavily redacted affidavit from an anonymous former Venezuelan military official who saw Chavez many years ago playing around with a supposedly rigged Smartmatic machine.

“It is a stunning, detailed affidavit because he was with Hugo Chavez while he was being briefed on how it worked. He was with Hugo Chavez when he saw it operated. He made sure the election came out his way,” Powell said on Thursday.

Powell also claimed that Soros controlled the voting machines, because the former chairman of Datamatic is also on the board of a Soros foundation — a striking echo of a claim that appeared in The Daily Caller ahead of the 2016 election.

Even if you buy these vague claims, however, Venezuela is a different country from the United States. And Smartmatic and Dominion are different companies.

To bridge these gaps, Powell has focused on the fact that Dominion bought a company called Sequoia Voting Systems from Smartmatic in 2010. The implication is that, somehow, Smartmatic installed its Hugo Chavez code in Sequoia machines, which then went on to infect Dominion’s owner systems with this crazed election-stealing ten years later."


Just for the record, I'm not buying it. There would need to be a lot more proof and testimony than anything we've seen so far. Again though, with the hand counts matching the computer tabulations, this angle doesn't seem plausible.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 27, 2020, 03:57:03 PM »
Why can't our government examine the Dominion software source code?

I'm sure the NSA has people up to the task. If the source code cannot be examined then that would seem to be a problem. In fact, it would be a problem if it hasn't already been examined by our government before it was allowed in our elections. Maybe it has been examined already and it's all good. If not though, that would seem like the logical place to start.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 27, 2020, 05:17:18 AM »

"Border policies

International travel has been widely recognized as a risk factor in spreading the virus, helping turn the outbreak in Wuhan, China, into a global pandemic. Most of the world suspended cross-border travel for all but essential purposes this spring. Some Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore, which have contained Covid-19 with greater success than the West, have kept tight restrictions on international travel, requiring visitors to test for the virus on arrival and often mandating a monitored quarantine."

It must be nice to have secure borders so you can actually have an enforceable border policy.

The thing about Biden announcing his mass amnesty right now which is essentially an open invitation for millions more people to come illegally across our border including hundreds of thousands in just the next few months is that very few of those "visitors" will be getting a test for the virus on arrival and even fewer will be subject to a mandated and monitored quarantine. And as an aside, where are all "the jobs Americans won't do" that will be waiting for them on arrival? How are they going to support themselves?

It's hilarious in a very tragic way how we're all making so many sacrifices to our standard of living, and rightfully so in my opinion, such as being begged not to travel to see family for the holidays, and meanwhile we have all of these people traveling with no absolutely no restrictions or oversight and that's no problemo. I guess it's the same as with the BLM protests. It's perfectly fine to violate all containment protocols if it's for a politically correct cause, apparently. The point is though that it's hard for people to take Democrat sincerity about the virus seriously when they refuse to take themselves seriously either.

Biden with his borders suck policy is as much of a super-spreader as Trump with his masks suck policy.

And maybe Biden is worse because while Trump was just super-spreading within America, Biden is super-spreading all across Latin America as well as these people travel from one end of it to the other on their way here, picking up and carrying the virus all along the way.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 26, 2020, 02:17:35 PM »

"Joe Biden vowed on Tuesday to send a bill to the Senate that would set up a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants."

Well good for him.

Just an observation though. Back when Republicans were talking about how this is amnesty and open borders and everyone was saying oh no, it's not that. Well, turns out yes it was and yes it is.

And that's fine. Just own it. Biden wasn't deceptive about it at least. He ran on it and he won and now he's doing it. Congratulations, I guess.

How about we finally just call it what it is though, at least.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 24, 2020, 07:26:14 PM »
Trump started no new wars and under his Presidency our military casualty numbers were very low.

It's going to be interesting on that front looking at how Biden compares over his four years. The way things look right now there shouldn't be any reason for Biden or Harris to start the types of military adventures for which Obama and Hillary were famous. If I remember correctly, Biden was supposed to be against at least some of them.

I'll give Biden props to some extent if he can do as well on that issue as Trump. It's sad though to see sometimes how much war our supposedly more peaceful Democrats can get themselves into like Obama did after his Nobel Peace Prize.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:34:54 AM »

"Based in New Jersey, Just Facts concluded that thousands of “extra” noncitizen votes went to Mr. Biden, enough to flip Arizona (plus 51,081) and Georgia (plus 54,950), but not sufficient to flip the election.

“This is just one kind of fraud,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times. “It’s a sizable number, which is the point. It also decimates the predominant narrative that there is no evidence of large-scale fraud in U.S. elections.”

Is evidence of this possible? Since votes cannot be matched to people after the fact, how could anyone ever prove this?

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 22, 2020, 04:29:12 PM »
I agree that state governments can pass those types of laws just like they can pass an individual mandate the way Romney did. Something in the Constitution about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unless the Supreme Court pulls some sort of right to privacy out of their rears the way they did with Roe v. Wade.

From the general internet:

"What does the 14th Amendment say about privacy?

Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc."

It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court we have now would find a right to privacy, my body my choice, applicable to refusal to get a vaccine which would be extra interesting if they did it at the same time as they overturned Roe v. Wade, especially if the usual suspects switched their positions with the liberals saying there is no right to control your own body when it comes to vaccinations but the conservatives say yes there is, the exact opposite of their positions on abortion.

Just as an aside, it would seem like if Obamacare and the mandate is Constitutional then forcing people to get vaccinated is also Constitutional. All you do is pass the law like they did with Obamacare and have it say that you must buy a vaccination which can be subsidized 100% on a means tested basis and if you don't then you get fined $5000, or taxed $5000 by the IRS; same difference, whatever way floats Roberts' boat. That was always the danger of the mandate, that the government can now make you do anything they want you to just by making you pay for it and then tax-fining you if you refuse.

This might go better in the Coronavirus thread, but anyway...

I did see another story in yahoo news decrying how many Supreme Court decisions lately have been going against voter rights.

This wasn't the story I saw but it brings us back to the election results. This story was from a while back now so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

"Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise," Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote. "And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote . . . The 2020 election may be in her hands."

Though the court allowed the state order to stand, "that victory may only last a matter of days," Vox's Ian Millhiser reported. "Indeed, the GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Barrett is confirmed, potentially securing a court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day. If the election is close, that could be enough to change the result."

As always, one thing to watch on rulings is who is ruling which way, even in the lower courts. Is it just one judge? Or is it more than one but they are unanimous? Or are there split decisions? If it's only one judge or the decisions are split that doesn't really tell us much until the case gets to the highest court it's going to get to.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 22, 2020, 03:46:11 PM »
Well the changes were done by Republicans but they weren't done to the state constitution, only to the regular laws, and the argument is their state constitution needed to be amended for those types of changes.

I could agree with some serious protesting if Trump went to the Supreme Court with that and managed to steal Pennsylvania, maybe even the Presidency.

But anyway, apparently that's their play.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 22, 2020, 03:39:22 PM »
Yeah, sorry about that. I edited it but it's cool.

It's not a matter of evidence of fraudulent votes.

It's a matter of evidence of whether or not the changes to the mail-in ballot procedures passed by Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature required an amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution or not.

That would be one of the worst sorts of dirty tricks for Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature to pass that legislation only to have it ruled null and void for essentially procedural reasons especially considering that if people knew they couldn't vote that way they would have gone in person, or did whatever it took to have their votes counted, and now instead they get thrown out.

I wouldn't bet on that happening though. It could be fine the way they passed it. It could also be that the courts rule that the votes stand as they are even if it should have been passed by amendment.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 22, 2020, 03:36:55 PM »
We're seeing the same type of "logic" used with the PA mail in voting situation as we saw with Obamacare and the individual mandate. There is less concern with legality and Constitutionality than there is with the effects of declaring them illegal and unConstitutional, namely that people will lose their health insurance and that people will lose the votes they cast in good faith in accordance with common understanding of the law at the time, not respectively.

The effects of a law should have no bearing on whether it is legal or not, whether it is Constitutional or not.

By that standard a law could be passed requiring everyone in America to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. We could get back to normal tout suite.

And those are most of the arguments we see for these types of laws. What would happen if they were declared illegal, null and void? Chaos. Injustice. It just wouldn't be fair.

What we don't see is the cold, dispassionate, logical, objective analysis of why the laws are actually legit. Where in the Constitution does it specifically grant the federal government the power to make any American a criminal if they don't buy a specific product from a for-profit corporation?

I'm not familiar with the details on why Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot rules needed to be passed by amending their constitution as opposed to the usual way in the legislature, but that's the crux of the issue, not the effect it will have. Even for people who are familiar there may be wide differences of opinion. Perhaps it was okay with just the legislature doing it. And maybe if it did need to pass by constitutional amendment they could do that and include a provision that ex-post factos it so those ballots count, and now if that can't pass then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 21, 2020, 08:12:32 PM »
One thing I never would have predicted about a Biden Presidency while it's trying to get off the ground is that he would hit the ground not so much running as putting his hand out for money.

I never even imagined that could be a thing.

"Here's the deal: Because President Trump refuses to concede and is delaying the transition, we have to fund it ourselves and need your help.

If you're able, chip in to help fund the Biden-Harris transition."

Needless to say, twitter and the internet were not having it.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 10:40:21 AM »
If someone were able to sit back at a distance and watch all of this as a neutral observer they would notice an elegant symmetry to the way both sides are playing the game. Move and counter and to a great extent using a mirror of the opponent's strategy.

"Performative strategy" is right. That's the perfect description for what Trump is doing right now. It's also the perfect description for what the Democrats have been doing for the past four years. The Russian collusion hoax. Fomenting violence in the streets as a political tool to hurt Trump in this election. The sham impeachment.

Sure some or perhaps even most people thought it was all legit.

And now the mirror with the massive voter fraud angle. The Trump campaign had their Russian meetings to give cover for the accusations against them and the Democrats have their constant refusal to accept voter I.D. requirements and lax canvassing and mail in ballot procedures that give cover to accusations of potential fraud against them. All to weaken the opposition and fire up the base to encourage voter turnout while sucking up all the oxygen in the room to keep the other side from having the energy required to implement their agenda. And it works. Most of the people even believe they are absolutely right.

As one of the greatest philosophers of our time once said, "... Just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it..."

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 09:10:28 AM »
We've entered a new age in politics.

The age of by any means necessary.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 06:22:14 AM »
What's interesting now is watching the Democrats pretend to freak out about how the sky is falling if Trump fails to concede the election when that's exactly what they've already done themselves including with a sham kangaroo court impeachment and inciting riots and violence in the streets. I mean usually the accusation is that Democrats accuse the other side of what they are doing but in this case it's accusing the other side of what they've already just done, very publicly and very proudly, for years and years and years already.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 21, 2020, 06:00:55 AM »
I could see a scenario unfolding in which Trump never concedes.

He does leave the White House in a peaceful transfer of power but without ever saying the words, "I concede the election."

Would that really be so bad?

I don't see how it would be any different than what the Democrats have done over the last four years. The impeachment of Trump by Pelosi and the Democrats along with Hillary later calling into question the integrity of the election with her Russian collusion comments was the ultimate expression of refusal to concede the election.

Trump could just say what the Democrats have been saying since he took office, that the election was successfully stolen.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 07:13:23 PM »
Speaking of "how you concede a presidential election with grace and dignity," I was too young to remember any of this but apparently the Democrats and media pulled the same type of Russian collusion to influence the election trick when Reagan won against Carter except they made the boogey man out to be Iran.

This has been going on for quite a while now. Same old same old.

So the Democrats use treason and collusion with our enemies while the Republicans use voter fraud to justify their feelings. Two sides of the same coin.

"In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election."

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 05:10:25 PM »
"Or will Trump, after all is said and done, and the courts find all of his claims with out merit, will he say it was a clean election, Biden won fair and square and that he, Trump, lost?  Can he admit the he lost?"

There are two separate issues there.

Sure the vote count was fair and square and Biden won that.

But is that the same as saying Biden won fair and square?

I think not.

The collusion between the mainstream media and the Democrat campaign went way beyond the pale this time. It was outright lies and propaganda.

Our own media did to us what they accused the Russians of doing four years ago. They colluded with  one campaign against the other. I'm not saying there are emails or people giving debate questions this time. It went even deeper than that with an understanding that required no overt communication.

You can't really have a free and fair election when the fourth estate has been 90% corrupted and censors itself to hide the faults of one side while exaggerating and outright lying about the faults of the other.

And that's just the media. There is also the issue of the deep state including the Obama administration that spied on the campaign of the opposition party and set into motion their Plan B which was to de-legitimize the new President. And of course Biden was part of that administration. He has good and plausible deniability of course but this election has been getting rigged since before even the last election.

Again, that's entirely separate from the vote count. But it's still a big issue and anyone not willing to accept Biden as the rightful heir to power could have their reasons. If they want to buy some used "RESIST" gear off the Democrats now that would be perfectly understandable.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 05:02:58 PM »
The people who still believe, or say they believe, that this election was stolen will be just like the ones who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election.

Some will actually believe it and others will just say they believe it because it serves their purposes.

I mean we still have people who say that the Supreme Court stole the election from Gore and handed it to Bush. And this is how many years later?

That's just the way the game is played now.

It's actually amusing seeing the same people who called into question the integrity of past elections including the one right before this one now with a straight face insisting that we must respect the integrity of our elections and hold up the winner as our newly anointed rightful leader like some kind of little Simba.

That's just NOT how the game is played anymore.

People can't reasonably refuse to accept the legitimacy of the opposing party President for four years and then suddenly expect everyone to turn around and accept theirs. I say they can't but apparently they do anyway. It doesn't work like that. The well of goodwill has been poisoned and there's no way to purify it. It's useless.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 19, 2020, 02:08:45 PM »
Did all the Justices on the Supreme Court rationalize it the way Roberts did? Was it unanimous?

If not then instead of Seriati knowing better than the Supreme Court, perhaps he just agrees with different Justices on it.

"Joining the Roberts opinion were the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote separately to say that while she agreed that rescinding DACA violated the law for the procedural reasons outlined by the chief justice, she would have allowed the litigants to return to the lower courts and make the case that rescinding DACA also amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissent, accusing Roberts of writing a political rather than a legal opinion. Joining him were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, with separate dissents also filed by Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh."

We should have heard more about the reasons given in the dissent.

And saying that rescinding a program because it's unConstitutional is an insufficient reason is pretty absurd. There is literally no better reason to rescind a program than it being illegal and unConstitutional. Roberts makes no sense. None at all. His rulings are often the definition of arbitrary and capricious, just like his individual mandate ruling declaring it a tax and not a fine though the Democrats in Congress specifically passed it as a fine and not a tax. Roberts is absurd and an embarrassment with many of his decisions because they are nonsensical.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 01:57:32 PM »
How could Trump win? Well if his good buddy Amy over at the Supreme Court pulls some strings or something and gets tens of thousands of Biden votes thrown out I guess that would do it. Now I don't see that happening. That's something that leftist conspiracy theorists have nightmares about, but I bet respect for our election process would go right out the window then and the same people insisting we respect our system now would literally be rioting in the streets screaming about voter fraud and corruption.  If you want a serious way that Trump could win then I don't have one. I don't think there's any way it's going to happen. Most of this is just to cross every t and dot every i and will end up helping legitimize Biden's victory with some little bits of fraud and mistakes uncovered that will work to help make our elections a little bit more secure in the future. Part of it is also political too just like the Russian collusion hoax was to fire up the base and reduce the power of the incoming opposition President  by calling into question his legitimacy just like the Democrats did to Trump, a page right out of the same playbook. It won't have any effect on the final result of the election but it may affect the political landscape for the next four years right into the next election and beyond.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 19, 2020, 01:34:05 PM »
‘What difference, at this point, does it make?'

If our elections can't be rigged or stolen then Trump won't be able to rig this one after the fact and steal it. If our elections are as solid as we're told they are then no harm can come from taking the time to do these recounts right and letting the process work it's way through the courts even up to the Supreme Court.

I still don't think Trump has any chance of winning but wouldn't that be something if he did? It would be hilarious seeing how fast Democrats insisting on how it's the solemn duty of every American to respect the integrity of the election goes out the window.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 19, 2020, 12:59:56 PM »
I'm sure Trump's plan to allow Americans to buy drugs made abroad at drastically lower prices than what the big Pharma monopoly forces them to pay at home had nothing to do with companies like Pfizer preferring a Biden presidency. Speaking of which, when Biden assumes power I wonder if Americans will ever see the lower drug prices that international competition will foster or if the Democrats only believe in allowing cheaper labor into America, not cheaper drugs.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 12:43:41 PM »
Well I'm on record as having said I think Trump lost the election and after all the court cases are decided, when the smoke clears and the dust settles, Trump will still have lost the election and Biden will be our President.

But... it's still important to do things in order with meticulous attention to detail. In the end it should help to legitimize the election and Biden's win. Any little problems we find even though they aren't enough to change the result will still help future elections go more smoothly. Little issues like this one.

Georgia recount reportedly finds more than 2,600 ballots that weren't tallied

You can do things as quickly as possible or you can do them as accurately as possible but you can't usually do both at the same time.

Trump's lame duck executive orders will probably provide a good example of doing things as quickly as possible at the expense of them being done with the attention to detail they deserve.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 12:27:02 PM »
Another but related way to look at it is, "Is Joe Biden now the President elect?"

Many in the same media that have called the election for Biden are also calling him the President elect.

Is that accurate?

Or is that fake news?

I've looked into it a bit and the short answer is that it's debatable. There's common parlance and there is more official language.

And I'm going to come down on the side of it being too soon to call Joe Biden our President elect. Doing so is fake news. He should be called the presumptive President elect, or “President-presumptive".  But whatever.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 11:09:57 AM »
> "Why should the court be the bad guy" when the administration "won't take responsibility" for rescinding DACA by explaining clearly what the policy justifications for the revocation are?

To put it a different way then, it's going to be interesting to see if Biden will be unable to rescind any of Trump's executive orders because he can't clearly explain what the policy justifications for the revocation are. My guess is going to be no. Biden will be able to rescind all of Trump's executive orders that he wants to rescind. Obama can issue an executive order that Trump can't rescind but there is no executive order that Trump can issue that Biden can't rescind. I'm curious now. Maybe I've asked this before. Has there even been an executive order in the history of our country that the next President was unable to rescind? Or did DACA make history on that count?

I hope Trump was just kidding around when he said "maybe I'll sign an executive order that you cannot have him as your president."

Back on the issue of presumptive President-elect Biden, these people get what I'm talking about:

“The media, including social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, are inaccurately labeling Biden as president-elect. No official sources have called the election. Federal law and the Constitution limit official sources to state officials, the Electoral College, and, ultimately, Congress. Thankfully, the Constitution does not give the media the ability to declare the winner of a presidential election,” says Tom Fitton...

They started going off the rails after that, but the point that the media can't really call an election in any real sense is one that the media doesn't seem to get.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 11:02:50 AM »
Well here's an example story:

A quick guide: Trump’s lawsuits dispute election results as presidency is called for Biden

I read the story again just to be sure and I didn't see anywhere in it where they specified exactly who it is that has called the Presidency for Biden.

Who called it for Biden?

And do they actually have any official authority to call an election?

Sure, anyone can call an election for anyone. Some random guy on a wilderness mountaintop can call the election if he wants to and scream the winner into the wind. But does it really mean anything? No, not really. Exactly the same as the people these news stories are referring to but won't name when they say the election has been called for Biden. If they were named then it would be obvious that they have no more authority to call it than than the stray cat grandma feeds in the winter.

I take your point that they admit it's not certified yet. That much is obvious. My point is they should state who it is they're talking about that has called it. It's like using the mysterious "they". That's bad journalism. By leaving that hanging they are imparting an imprimatur of officiousness that does not exist.

General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: November 18, 2020, 08:47:46 AM »
Apparently some Republicans may be intent on proving beyond any doubt that there really is massive voter fraud by committing it themselves.

General Comments / Re: Lame Duck Actions
« on: November 18, 2020, 08:44:42 AM »
> TheDeamon

> The Media can say everything it wants, that doesn't make it legally binding.

That's irritating me too the way the media keeps leaving their main talking point only half said.

They keep saying "The election has been called for Biden" but they won't finish the sentence and say called by whom.

That wouldn't work so well then would it? "The election has been called for Biden by CNN." Or Fox News. Or whatever organization the media is talking about when they say it's been called already. If they finished their statement by telling everyone who called it for Biden then it becomes nonsensical and laughable. Nobody who has called it has the authority to do so. A little kid going by car to the movies with his older brother and college age friends has more authority to call shotgun then anyone in our media has to call the election.

As for lame duck actions, one thing I've been wondering about for some time is what executive orders Trump can issue that his successor will be unable to undo before his first term is up because the courts refuse to allow it, like DACA. Not a lame duck executive order but an executive order nonetheless and one that Trump was not allowed to revoke.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: November 16, 2020, 05:51:14 PM »
I think we see in Europe a bit of what Fenring's talking about. Trump could have done a better job on masks. But the European leaders did a better job. They did a great job on taking the virus seriously, recommending masks and social distancing, doing a shutdown, and all of it. And still much of their population is ignoring their leaders and even openly rebelling against common sense to save lives.

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency
« on: November 16, 2020, 09:45:12 AM »
I was for masks even before Trump was against them. Having spent a couple of years in Asia the way mask wearing was common and perfectly acceptable already left a good impression on me. In a pandemic like this one as well as the last one they are just common sense.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28