The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Alpo]

Let's keep our nouns straight. The THING I'm summarizing is the extent to which it appears that there was some voter fraud evident, and it was more than just a little. It's just not quantifiable to the scale that would be needed to invalidate the election in those effected states, IMHO. I don't care how old you are. Or whatever the typical things were in the past. I'm not making this about Donald Trump or any of his family. Bringing them up in that way is completely beside the point. We're talking about THIS election, which is arguably the most contested in our history. So it's okay if things don't go according to Hoyle completely. We have a process for handling such things. The courts are doing their best to handle it. Things not going as according to Hoyle as you'd like is not a reason to believe nothing of a nefarious nature happened. In the sand is not a good place to rest your head. I'm just trying to keep mine where I can see the whole playing field.

Pfft. You're just filling the page with words. No proof, no crime. How's that for simple nouns?

 

[jamil]

Im just passing along correct history. They were certainly not good actors. They ruthless in their lust for blood, and believed the violent overthrow of the Czar, and the complete elimination of the the Russian nobility were required to reach the goal I mentioned earlier. And it was Lenin, not Stalin that gave them their matching orders.

Yep. I misspoke on that point.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Translation: I don't care if there is fraud or even that it might have swung the election because the result is my guy won.

I think the better translation is: “If you say there was fraud enough to change the election, show me that fraud, or else I find difficulty in taking you seriously.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yep. I misspoke on that point.

I figured as much. I don’t question you memory on historical matters; just my posts.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, I wasn't gonna say it that way. But it does sound a lot like, "Hurry up and swear him in before they find out he didn't win it fairly!"

Kind of like getting to the line of scrimmage before the opposing coach can throw the challenge flag.

 

[jamil]

Pfft. You're just filling the page with words. No proof, no crime. How's that for simple nouns?

That's some serious head in sand stuff right there. Here are some more words. Not that you'll bother reading them.

There were many reports of people voting more than once, people voting in states where the did not have legal residence, people voting for elderly, ballot harvesting, people receiving ballots in the mail that weren't theirs, but filling them out anyway. Some of those people got caught. Who knows how many didn't. It's a difficult thing to catch especially if you're an election official also with your head in the sand (meaning, you're not really all that eager to discount ballots that affirm the outcome you want). But. It's impossible to know the scale. Possibly widespread. Possibly not.

And then there are the cases where election rules were changed prior to election. That is a problem. But, again, it's hard to quantify how that impacted the election. How many votes did it account for? There are a few things to figure out there. One, were the rule changes themselves outside the rule of law? Were they changed just to give one party an advantage? And mostly, did it change the election result? Those are legitimate questions which we need an answer to so that future elections can be trusted. It's going to take too long to sort that out in time. So without immediate and incontrovertible evidence to support that the outcome would have been different, I do think the states should certify, but the lawsuits should continue.

If you find that position is unreasonable, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Hawkeye]

Bug: I'm sure the Colonel has much more to say than just this short summary and the summary isn't worth responding to.

I still believe that Joe Biden will be installed as president on Jan 20 and there isn't any need to game scenarios of an apocalypse.

Who is "the Colonel"?

 

[KG1]

Personally I don't think this Texas thing will go anywhere. SCOTUS doesn't want to risk triggering a strike or something over a little fraud and unconstitutional procedure.

Enjoy your Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden administration.

 

[Alpo]

There is always some amount of error in any given system. And yes, there was at least one instance of fraud in California that I seem to remember affected 8000 ballots? I don't know the status of that charge..it wouldn't have affected the California presidential outcome in any event, although it might have greatly affected local politics.

What you call "reports" is not proof. There were allegations. There were affidavits. But, when confronted by the courts in the light of day, it can best be summarized by Giuliani in one of his appearances:

On Nov. 7, the day most media outlets called the race for Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani stood outside a landscaping business in Philadelphia, making false claims about widespread election malfeasance.

“This is a gross miscarriage of the process that would assure that these ballots are not fraudulent,” he said. “It’s a fraud, an absolute fraud.”

Under questioning from a federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Mr. Giuliani made a different admission: “This is not a fraud case,” he said.

50 lawsuits, give or take. And not one clear case of significant fraud.

Methinks the waste of resources and the corrosive effect of Trump's ego and his toadies to the election process is horrific.

 

[Alpo]

Who is "the Colonel"?

The dude who wrote the article. Pretty extensive military background and probably knowledgeable about insurgencies, although I haven't read anything he's written. I did review his bio.

 

[Hawkeye]

The dude who wrote the article. Pretty extensive military background and probably knowledgeable about insurgencies, although I haven't read anything he's written. I did review his bio.

What article? can't you simply answer a simple question in a responsive manner?

 

[jamil]

I think the better translation is: “If you say there was fraud enough to change the election, show me that fraud, or else I find difficulty in taking you seriously.”

I think a more reasonable position (not trying to translate anyone's thoughts here) would be that if there is evidence of fraud, but not sufficient to know whether it was enough to change the election, both sides should want that much known. Both sides should be asking for investigations. And I don't think it's sufficient to just claim it, even with some evidence, and then expect an entire election to be overturned. It's appropriate at this point to certify and get on with the process. But in the mean time, let's figure out what happened. Let's get to the bottom of all the accusations.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think a more reasonable position (not trying to translate anyone's thoughts here) would be that if there is evidence of fraud, but not sufficient to know whether it was enough to change the election, both sides should want that much known. Both sides should be asking for investigations. And I don't think it's sufficient to just claim it, even with some evidence, and then expect an entire election to be overturned. It's appropriate at this point to certify and get on with the process. But in the mean time, let's figure out what happened. Let's get to the bottom of all the accusations.

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

 

[Alpo]

What article? can't you simply answer a simple question in a responsive manner?

Post #1338. Not my job to hold your hand. If you can't follow, next time ask nicely. DBAD

 

[Hawkeye]

Post #1338. Not my job to hold your hand. If you can't follow, next time ask nicely. DBAD

I did ask nicely. GO back and read my post. You are the one who is quick with the non-responsive quips and slaps. The attitude you express in your posts really makes me discount what you say.

Instead of acting like this and giving me a SA attempt at a blast, why don't you simple answer the question with something polite like Colonel ____. Would that really be so hard? It would go a way toward re-establishing come politeness in the forum.

It seems to me that you have a self fulfilling prophecy going on here.

 

[jamil]

So, do the strikers think they can just take TP and meat out of the trucks? Or does the super serious strike starve them, too?

Time to post this again, I guess

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833
Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

I used to think so. Now I'm not so sure. I underestimated how organized they were. The George Floyd riots started with amazing precision as if community organizers were at the ready, just waiting for the right trigger. The coordination between Antifa and BLM almost looked like they've rehearsed it. Both organizations are communist, and communism doesn't take hold without bloody revolutions. What's happening today is just meat tenderizer. I think it will take some organization to defend against it. It's not a sure outcome. It's not just a culture war. At least that's what it looks like to me.

 

[OneBadV8]

 

[jamil]

Personally I don't think this Texas thing will go anywhere. SCOTUS doesn't want to risk triggering a strike or something over a little fraud and unconstitutional procedure.

Enjoy your Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden administration.

About the "unconstitutional procedure". I'm not sure that much is a fact in evidence yet. There are plenty of partisans who will tell is it definitely is, or, definitely isn't constitutional because they want a certain outcome. What does the law say about how the rules may change. That much is up to the states.

 

[Ingomike]

About the "unconstitutional procedure". I'm not sure that much is a fact in evidence yet. There are plenty of partisans who will tell is it definitely is, or, definitely isn't constitutional because they want a certain outcome. What does the law say about how the rules may change. That much is up to the states.

For Gods sake!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

Not the governor, not the Secretary of State, not the election board.

Are we clear? The framers were...

 

[T.Lex]

Lenin was a product of his times, and those times look nothing like today. (Same for Stalin.)

The Bolsheviks had to fight a bloody civil war to actually take power. The czar abdicated the throne and for a few months, there was actually a decent democracy (for the standards of the time) that tried to rule. Russia was too big and too agrarian, and those who wanted power wanted it too intensely. (They didn't have the benefit of relatively unselfish founding fathers, like the US did.)

That fight in the vacuum of a working government led to the shooting war which ultimately resulted in the Lenin-led faction forming the government.

That lack of a working gov't is the scary part. Trump's shenanigans, IMHO, are unlikely to create that kind of vacuum. But, if for some reason that does happen - or we have parallel competing government - that's a recipe for disaster.