The election

[Guest Scott]

Anyway, another story concerning the 2012 election and one of the defining moments in my slide from leaning republican to independent to (slightly) democrat.  I'm rambling here and this is off topic, so anyone not interested can keep scrolling.

I used to be (prior to 2001) a staunch republican on almost every subject except for the enviromment and maybe education (I grew up in a very low income neighborhood so believe that education is a way out of poverty).  My views drifted a bit as time went on, but 2012 was a defining moment.

I lived in Craig Colorado, which although in a blue state is probably one of the reddest and most anti Hillary  Counties in the county.  It is a (now dying) coal mining town so obviously they are very anti Trump and Biden.

My wife needed a heart surgery and my employer didn't offer very good of insurance.  Only two places in the country would even tough doing my wife's heart surgery since it was a type of heart (of course it was still a human heart, but not normal) that no surgeon could recall ever seeing.   Our cardiologist and other cardiologists/surgeons sent photos of her heart all over the country trying to see if anyone had seen her unique condition and would fix it with surgery.  Only the Cleveland Clinic and Heart Hospital in Loveland offered to do the surgery.

Anyway our insurance wouldn't cover much of the cost, so I went to work for the coal mine even though I didn't really like what the industry does to the environment.  I rationalized this with myself saying that I was doing it for my wife's heart surgery and since I used a different form of energy myself, I wasn't really hurting anyone and was somehow doing a good thing.

So I'm there a few months and everyone likes me and thinks that I am doing a great job.  My employer thinks that I have a nice little perfect wife and kids that would look good to the media.  Mitt Romney was coming to town on his campaign trail and I was one of the people chosen (through no wish of my own) to go meet with Mitt Romney and ralley for him and the coal industry.  OK fine, I'll go do that and stand in back with my family.

So I take my family to the rally and my employer gives us all pro-coal hats.  No problem, we'll just stand in back and smile.

Mitt Romney starts giving his speech, looks up and selects my daughter (who was sitting on my shoulder) as part of his speech and starts going on about how she, me, my wife and son are the faces of the hard working families who are Romney supporters.  Needless to say after the speech all the media flocks to us asking all kinds of questions and such.  I didn't say much.  I didn't know what to say.  

Anway the story hit all of the Colorado newspapers and even the New York times about hard working families such as the Patterson's who are supporting Romney.

Luckily the parts of the speech quoted by the Newspapers weren't that detailed, but they did quote parts about our family and us being Romney supporters.   Here is one of the quotes in the newspaper (my daughter is Shaylee):

https://www.craigdailypress.com/news/going-red-for-romney-gop-presidential-candidates-speech-rallies-around-republican-ideals/

Romney singled out Shaylee Patterson, an eight-year-old Craig resident who attended the campaign rally with her parents, as he spoke about education.

He criticized Obama’s policies on the nation’s education system as being too narrowly focused on teachers rather than students.

“I want you to have a good job, I want you to be able to stay here in Craig and I also want you to have a great school,” Romney said. “I want to make sure we have a president that cares more about kids than he does about the teacher’s union.

“I love great teachers, I love great parents and I love great kids. I’m going to put our kids first.”

After that happened, it was really awkward at work.  I was a sort of spokes person for an industry I secretely hated.  The coal industry is really shady and I was asked to do a lot of shady and dishonest things (both before and after this happened).  I couldn't stand the guilt and got more depressed every day I went into work, even though people thought I was happy.  It was hard to live with the guilt. I still feel guilty about it.  I had good intentions (my wife's heart surgery), but going to work for the coal industry is the single most wicked thing I have ever done.  I still feel guilty about it.

I have vowed never to support any candidate who supports the coal industry.  I just won't do it.  Despite much repentance, the guilt still isn't completely gone, but repenting and making the vow of never supporting the coal industry in any way helps.  I still consider going to work for the coal industry as being one of the two most wicked things I have ever done.  I rationalized it by my wife's need of a heart surgery, but what I did was very very wrong.☹️

Anyway, I could say a lot more, but I'm rambling and this is way off topic.

[Guest Scott]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just a reminder folks, we've all been here before. 

2000 - Bush v. Gore.  We didn't know the results of the election until the 2nd week in December. Then, it was Bush winning, and Al Gore descending on the nation with hoards of lawyers.  There were contested results, and lawsuits, and legislative action to change the rules after the fact, and state supreme court decisions being reversed and remanded by SCOTUS. You could say the entire election was decided by one person in a 5-4 decision.  This year's sharpie was 2000's dimpled chad. 

Yeah, all this happening during a global pandemic is making things weirder, but no really, we've all been here before.

Yes, I have been thinking of 2000 as well.  Only the dimpled chad was demostrated to actually affect the election.  Sharpie votes will still be counted.  

Also, the Florida recount was denied.

Here's a little background info for any younger folks who don't remember it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida

[NeedleinA]

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, but I was on my mission in Brazil in 2000; so I didn’t get to feel really righteous about myself during that election cycle.  😛

Senior couple mission?  j/k

[Suzie]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Which tweet are we to believe?

 

This is a LIE. He never posted that on Twitter. If you zoom in, you can even tell it is fake.

[Just_A_Guy]

40 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, I have been thinking of 2000 as well.  Only the dimpled chad was demostrated to actually affect the election.  Sharpie votes will still be counted.  

Also, the Florida recount was denied.

Here's a little background info for any younger folks who don't remember it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida

IIRC, the SCOTUS holding wasn’t that “there’s no good reason for a recount”, it was a) “you’re using different standards in different precincts to interpret ambiguous ballots”, and b) “you don’t have time to do another recount with universally-applicable standards, because your own law says you have to be done by such-and-such a date, and that date is now past; so you have to live with your original certified results.”

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, Suzie said:

 

This is a LIE. He never posted that on Twitter. If you zoom in, you can even tell it is fake.

A contemporaneous Newsweek story seems to confirm he sent the tweet.  
 

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-emoji-donald-trump-had-enough-debate-1535308

[NeuroTypical]

Yep, here's a link to Biden's actual tweet. Click to your heart's content to verify.

 

I'm all for being immediately suspicious of any random image/clip/sound/story that doesn't have a link to the source, but we should ask for a source, rather than call someone a liar.

[Suzie]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A contemporaneous Newsweek story seems to confirm he sent the tweet.  
 

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-emoji-donald-trump-had-enough-debate-1535308

If he did, I retract my statement. What a childish thing to do.

[Suzie]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep, here's a link to Biden's actual tweet. Click to your heart's content to verify.

 

I'm all for being immediately suspicious of any random image/clip/sound/story that doesn't have a link to the source, but we should ask for a source, rather than call someone a liar.

Please kindly, do not put words in my mouth. I said it was a lie (meaning, the post itself being fake). Those who know me here, know very well I would never call anyone a liar. 

Having said that, I retracted the statement and said it was childish.

[Anddenex]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

The big question though is why would anyone use a Sharpie, especially on an absentee or mail in ballot?  Don't all of the ballots say use only blue or black ink pen?   Mine sure did.

That is the concern from what I am reading and hearing. Mine did also, and yet Sharpies were being handed out to fill in the circles.

[NeuroTypical]

I haven't paid any attention to the Sharpie issue, but is not a sharpie basically the dictionary definition of "a black ink pen"?

[estradling75]

Claims of Voter Fraud are serious claims.

Serious claims begin with serious accusations.

Serious accusations need to be taken seriously no matter what we might think of the accuser.

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, but they need to be allowed to gather and put forth their proof and not just dismissed.

What ever evidence is put forth then need to be evaluated based strictly on the power of the evidence.

We are in the accusation and evidence gathering phase, now.

 

The real tragedy of this whole thing is... Trump called his shot months ago.  Had the 'Powers that Be' being paying attention they could have take steps to secure the election from this claim, yet they did not.  Thus I have no sympathies for those complaining about his actions now when they literally had months to prevent it.

[Guest Scott]

34 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Claims of Voter Fraud are serious claims.

Serious claims begin with serious accusations.

Serious accusations need to be taken seriously no matter what we might think of the accuser.

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, but they need to be allowed to gather and put forth their proof and not just dismissed.

What ever evidence is put forth then need to be evaluated based strictly on the power of the evidence.

This is true.  If the accusations are true then it needs to be taken seriously.  The perpetrators need to be punished (and voter fraud is extremely serious).  On most states voter fraud is a felony.

On the flip side, false accusations also need to be taken seriously.  False accusers also need to be held accountable and punished justly.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

And so it begins:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1747044/trump-fans-storm-arizona-voting-center-joe-biden-michigan/

TRUMP supporters and election challengers stormed voting stations in Arizona and Michigan - forcing one to close.

The protesters - some carrying guns - screamed "stop the steal" and "stop the count" as Democrat Joe Biden closed in on victory in the too-close-to-call race to the White House.

This will slow the count since some polling offices had to close.

It will probably escalate after the winner is called.

A lot of people behaved poorly after Trump was declared winner and unfortunately I expect a lot of people will behave poorly after Biden is declared winner.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Scott

[person0]

Faithless Electors' votes in WI, PA, and GA are counted as cast, meaning there is no penalty if they do not vote for the candidate selected by their state's popular vote. All three states have a Republican majority in both their House and Senate. In theory, regardless of the outcome of each state's popular vote, electors in these states could be chosen specifically to vote to elect Donald Trump, or to abstain from voting for Biden which would force the election into Congress. In Congress the House gets one vote per state for President and the Senate gets one vote per state for vice president. Despite the House having more Democrat representatives, Republicans represent more states. Hence, a Republican President would be elected, an likely a vice president also. Our constitutional republic was designed specifically to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. While the uproar would be immense, such an outcome would be completely legal, constitutional, and legitimate.  Despite that, it could be considered 'dishonest' if only for the fact that the majority of the American people are uneducated to the extent they do not understand this is how our republic was designed.

This would be the most 2020 way to end the year. . . and get the next civil war started.  🤣

Edited November 6, 2020 by person0

[Still_Small_Voice]

24 minutes ago, person0 said:

Our constitutional republic was designed specifically to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. While the uproar would be magnanimous, such an outcome would be completely legal, constitutional, and legitimate.  Despite that, it could be considered 'dishonest' if only for the fact that the majority of the American people are uneducated to the extent they do not understand this is how our republic was designed.

I dislike when people call our government a Democracy.  It is not.  We have a Constitutional Republic.  Democracy governments are short in their lives and violent in their deaths from what I have learned.

[Guest Scott]

Republicans and Democrats in swing states be like:

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Scott

[estradling75]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

This is true.  If the accusations are true then it needs to be taken seriously.  The perpetrators need to be punished (and voter fraud is extremely serious).  On most states voter fraud is a felony.

On the flip side, false accusations also need to be taken seriously.  False accusers also need to be held accountable and punished justly.

True

Claims of false accusations are serious claims.

Serious claims begin with serious accusations.

Serious accusations need to be taken seriously no matter what we might think of the accuser.

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, but they need to be allowed to gather and put forth their proof and not just dismissed.

What ever evidence is put forth then need to be evaluated based strictly on the power of the evidence.

We are in the accusation and evidence gathering phase, now.

 

Please note that accusations of fraud and accusations of false accusation require proof.  Requires more then just showing that the other side was wrong.. it requires showing that they were deliberately deceptive for gain.

Take for example Arizona's Sharpiegate.  You have people claiming that sharpies do not work, and people claiming that they do work.  It is possible that both are correct to a degree and we have a intermittent failure.  This is bad this needs to be corrected.  But it does not rise to the level of fraud or false accusation, unless someone is lying about their experiences.

Thus to prove the charge of false accusation they have to prove that sharpie ballots were never rejected...To prove the charge voter fraud they have to prove that sharpie ballot rejection was known and was still used.  Neither of which can happen if we simply declare one side 'fake news' or 'unproven statements'

Edited November 6, 2020 by estradling75

[Carborendum]

Flashback Friday:

Regarding Elder Oaks Saturday Morning address this past Conference, and his statement that we need to obey the law and accept the consequences of the election.

On 10/3/2020 at 2:00 PM, Carborendum said:

I'm wondering if this was focused on the more conservative crowd.  Trump is going to lose.  And there may be quite a bit of concern that the election was stolen.  In fact there will be tremendous evidence that such was the case.  But it will go through the courts -- even to SCOTUS.  And it will be determined that insufficient evidence exists to nullify the "official numbers."

...

Both sides need to repent and accept the legally determine outcome after appropriate due process.  And we need to approach it with the understanding that the result will not go our way. We will go through trials.  We will be called upon to carry the cross and see others whom we can serve.  And even in the midst of persecution, we will be called upon to seek unity with those who persecute us, abuse us, and despitefully use us, and still recognize they are children of God.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest Godless]

7 hours ago, person0 said:

Faithless Electors' votes in WI, PA, and GA are counted as cast, meaning there is no penalty if they do not vote for the candidate selected by their state's popular vote. All three states have a Republican majority in both their House and Senate. In theory, regardless of the outcome of each state's popular vote, electors in these states could be chosen specifically to vote to elect Donald Trump, or to abstain from voting for Biden which would force the election into Congress. In Congress the House gets one vote per state for President and the Senate gets one vote per state for vice president. Despite the House having more Democrat representatives, Republicans represent more states. Hence, a Republican President would be elected, an likely a vice president also. Our constitutional republic was designed specifically to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. While the uproar would be magnanimous, such an outcome would be completely legal, constitutional, and legitimate.  Despite that, it could be considered 'dishonest' if only for the fact that the majority of the American people are uneducated to the extent they do not understand this is how our republic was designed.

This would be the most 2020 way to end the year. . . and get the next civil war started.  🤣

These talking points sounds very similar to the things Dems were saying in 2016.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Claims of false accusations are serious claims.

Serious claims begin with serious accusations.

Serious accusations need to be taken seriously no matter what we might think of the accuser.

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, but they need to be allowed to gather and put forth their proof and not just dismissed.

It is this very principle that makes me actually believe the claims.

Brian Williams (after listening for 20 seconds -- not the 40 seconds that has been generously claimed -- 20 seconds was just the greeting, etc.) cuts off the President of the United States by making summary judgment that his statements are lies.  This tells me that they're covering something up.

Trump made the statement of his position in that 20 seconds.  He was about to put forth the argument (and possibly evidence) to support that position.  But no.  Williams just plain decided to cut him off because he just "knew" it was a lie.  They refuse to even listen to the argument.

We can only hope that courts will be more even-handed.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Carborendum

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We can only hope that courts will be more even-handed.

If the appointed judges are not political shills but judging according to the law then they should be.  Having said that the burden of proof is high and I think your prediction will hold true.  I also think ultimately Trump will not be able to prove fraud. (which is not the same as saying there was no fraud) and the presidency will go to Biden.  If for no other reason then the fraudsters would have had to know this would be coming and had plenty of time to cover themselves.  If they didn't not only would they be fraudsters but they would be incompetent ones

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, person0 said:

Faithless Electors' votes in WI, PA, and GA are counted as cast, meaning there is no penalty if they do not vote for the candidate selected by their state's popular vote. All three states have a Republican majority in both their House and Senate. In theory, regardless of the outcome of each state's popular vote, electors in these states could be chosen specifically to vote to elect Donald Trump, or to abstain from voting for Biden which would force the election into Congress. In Congress the House gets one vote per state for President and the Senate gets one vote per state for vice president. Despite the House having more Democrat representatives, Republicans represent more states. Hence, a Republican President would be elected, an likely a vice president also. Our constitutional republic was designed specifically to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. While the uproar would be magnanimous, such an outcome would be completely legal, constitutional, and legitimate.  Despite that, it could be considered 'dishonest' if only for the fact that the majority of the American people are uneducated to the extent they do not understand this is how our republic was designed.

This would be the most 2020 way to end the year. . . and get the next civil war started.  🤣

I don’t know that “faithless electors” is really an issue here.  IIRC, SCOTUS had a case in the last 2 or 3 years where they affirmed a state’s right to punish/nullify the vote of a faithless elector; so that issue isn’t something we are likely to see anytime soon.

Yes, SCOTUS could theoretically say “the evidence indicates that Wisconsin’s vote-counting process was hopelessly flawed, so the state government needs to just pick some electors”.  But how those electors are picked is a matter of state law, and if there’s no clear procedure already in place for each state then that state’s legislature will have to pass a bill.  Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have GOP-controlled legislatures but Democrat governors (AZ and GA are controlled exclusively by the GOP and Nevada by the Dems).  So IF SCOTUS ruled for Trump, then what would likely happen would be that the biggest of the disputed states wouldn’t designate any electors at all.  In that case, Biden would have the majority of the electoral votes already cast; and that’s the ballgame.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...In that case, Biden would have the majority of the electoral votes already cast; and that’s the ballgame.

Is that how it would work?  I thought that it was not a majority of the electors who "attend" but the total number of total number "slated"* for lack of a better word.  So, Biden would have a plurality, not a majority.

At that point, all electors are released.  But in today's political climate that doesn't mean much.

So, it would go to the House.

*Slated vs attended: I'm basing this off of the fact that I don't know of any precedent where some state simply did not send electors, and the principle that a Constitutional amendment cannot be passed by 3/4 of the states who vote.  But by 3/4 of all the states, period.

EDIT: Apparently in the Kennedy/Nixon election, Hawaii was disputed.  

Quote

Turnout topped 93 percent in Hawaii. The state’s result was close, just as the nation’s was overall. Nixon initially appeared to be the winner by 141 votes, and the Republican governor declared him the winner. But a judge granted the Kennedy team’s request for a recount. As it dragged on, the judge rejected GOP attempts to stop the count. When the mid-December date came for the Electoral College to meet — this year it’s Dec. 14 — both Republican and Democratic electors sent their votes to Washington to be counted. 

Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside.

“He resolved it in a rather statesmanlike way by using parliamentary procedure,” State University of New York professor James A. Gardner said in a recent webinar organized by the New York State Bar Association. “He asked for unanimous consent that the votes of the Democratic electors would count. So he resolved this against himself.”

I don't think it will resolve itself in a similar manner in today's climate.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, person0 said:

While the uproar would be magnanimous...

Are you sure that's the word you mean to use?

Edited November 6, 2020 by Jamie123