The election

[NeedleinA]

Hillary Clinton 8/26/20:

Quote

Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances... don't give an inch

Sounds completely fair that President Trump receive and act upon the same advice.
Sen. Lindsey Graham 11/8/20

Quote

This is a contested election... Do not concede, Mr. President. Fight hard.

Trump doesn't need to concede the election just because news outlets claim it is over. News outlets, tweeter feeds, Youtube videos, etc. don't determine the presidency of the Untied States.
 

[Jamie123]

On 11/8/2020 at 1:20 PM, estradling75 said:

In theory the Supreme Court is conservative again.  If they truly are that means they will Rule according to Law and the Evidence provided.

Whereas if they were liberal they would put their dislike of Trump above truth, evidence and the law? But since they're conservatives, we need not fear!

What faith!

Just to put some context to my "Lord Denning" comparison: This was from 1980, when he dismissed an action against the police by six then-convicted terrorists (all of whom were later exonerated):

Quote

“If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

To paraphrase: "If these guys are telling the truth, it must follow that the police were dishonest: right or wrong, it's better not to open that particular can for fear of the worms that might be inside!"

Denning was about as conservative as any judge has ever been. (Unless you want to count Judge Jeffreys!) Margaret Thatcher called him “probably the greatest English judge of modern times”.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Jamie123

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Whereas if they were liberal they would put their dislike of Trump above truth, evidence and the law? What faith!

 

You misunderstood my point..  There are plenty of people who claim to be conservative... but when push comes to shove do not hold to the principles.  When the Supreme Court as a majority one way or the others they commonly get accused of putting party over principle.  If Trump presents to the Court and the conservative Court rules against him, put a fork in him because he is done for this election. 

[dprh]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

• If dead people were found to be voting, this is provable fraud.  And there were thousands of those found.

I may be reading that linked article wrong.  But it looks like it's about dead people being registered to vote, not that there were actually votes cast in their name.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Whereas if they were liberal they would put their dislike of Trump above truth, evidence and the law?

We have certainly seen that throughout the US for four years now.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

But since they're conservatives, we need not fear!

Jamie, I think you don't grasp what's going on with the US Supreme Court, specifically with the judicial doctrines of originalism and textualism.

In brief: Most (not all) conservative-leaning judges believe in originalism, which specifies that a law means today what it meant at the time it first became law, including any relevant legal distinctions that have arisen since then. They also tend to believe in the related concept of textualism, which is that you must read how the law is written in order to understand what it means. Both of these seem obvious enough, and are vital to a truly conservative understanding of law. When we want to change a law, we change the law, not just decide to interpret it differently.

In contrast, most (not all) liberal judges reject originalism and textualism, substituting instead what they call "living Constitutional interpretation". This means that they read a law to mean what they (the judges) believe the law should mean given (their judgment of) today's societal mores.

Well, what's wrong with that? Most Europeans I have heard seem to think that's a great idea. And it is, if you enjoy totalitarian monarchies or oligarchies. But for a free people, such a philosophy means that, in effect, the Supreme Court can literally say a law means anything they want it to say. There is literally no constraint on what the Supreme Court can do. Consider: As far back as 1973, the Supreme Court invented, more or less out of whole cloth, the idea that the US Constitution implicitly confers a "right to privacy" between a doctor and a patient. They then used this artificial, wholly manufactured "right" to proclaim that a state government could not interfere in that "right to privacy" by outlawing or regulating elective abortion.

In principle, as long as five USSC justices agree to it, the Supreme Court could find that the Second Amendment to the Constitution implicitly guarantees that all black women may be shot to death on sight. The textualist or originalist argument—"That's not at all what the law says, or what those who put it in place meant!"—would be summarily rejected. The law means exactly whatever the Supreme Court decrees that it means.

I know of some self-proclaimed liberals who are secretly glad that Trump's appointees are in place. They are worried about losing their sacred "right" to feticide, of course, but they recognize that the liberal idea of "living" interpretation is a blueprint for the destruction of the Constitution. I don't understand why more Europeans fail to grasp that. I can only imagine it is because Europeans are far enough divorced from their governments that they don't really pay attention to such matters.

[Guest Scott]

I think it is harder to commit voter fraud than people think.  Now I really think that.

Each signature on a mail in vote is checked against the signature on the voter registration.

I did something really stupid in that I accidentally  signed my name on my son's envelope thinking it was mine.  After we noticed, my son just signed his name over my signature so there is one signature on top of the other.  He got this big scary letter in the mail.  Now he's (he's 18) afraid that he will be a convicted felon for life and that the DA is after him.🙃  Let's hope not (after he starts sweating a bit), we'll all laugh at this, but it does show how carefully the mail in ballots are checked and handled.

  

Anyway, if you don't hear from me on the forum, I'm probably rotting in some prison somewhere because I accidentally signed my son's envelope that he signed over. I think it's easy to prove that each of us filled out our own ballot and only voted once, so we should be safe.

I can say for sure that the vote counters do take great care in making sure the votes are valid though.

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Scott

[Jamie123]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't understand why more Europeans fail to grasp that. I can only imagine it is because Europeans are far enough divorced from their governments that they don't really pay attention to such matters.

If I meet any Europeans I'll ask them!

Stupid thing to say actually since most of my colleagues are Europeans. We have two Germans, two Greeks, one Frenchman, one Italian, and the head of school is Polish. We also have an Iraqi, a Canadian, another guy who is either US or Canadian (I don't usually notice the difference - unless I'm particularly listening for the "ou"), and two Indians (though one of them might be a Pakistani - I'm not sure).

Seriously though, thanks for the post - some interesting insight there

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

After we noticed, my son just signed his name over my signature so there is one signature on top of the other.

Why didn't he cross your signature out and put his own in next to it?

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

I think it is harder to commit voter fraud than people think.  Now I really think that.

Each signature on a mail in vote is checked against the signature on the voter registration.

I'd ask you to read through the attachment below that goes through the process in your own state.  It sure sounds reassuring.

Then read the following link:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/2020-election-voter-signature-verification

This was before the election.  It talks about how easy it is to forge a signature according to the standards they set.  

But now, after the election, I'm sure the LA Times is just rolling their eyes that Trump is claiming voter fraud.

____________

That said, the big problem I see this year is the sheer quantity of mail in ballots.  There is no way that a few dozen or even a few hundred people could visually process millions of ballots in three days.  They had to have either

a) only given a very cursory look at the signatures, or
b) they had to employ many "judges" who were not qualified to detect forged signatures.

I think it is a lot easier to commit voter fraud than you seem to think.  Now I really think that.

02 Mini Life of the Ballot - Signature Verification_201611201550375385.pdf

Edited November 10, 2020 by Carborendum

[NeedleinA]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

I think it is harder to commit voter fraud than people think. 
Each signature on a mail in vote is checked against the signature on the voter registration.

Colorado, for example is not Pennsylvania. Safeguards in one state may not apply in other states.
Forbes - Pennsylvania Ballots Can’t Be Thrown Out For Mismatched Signatures, Court Rules In Blow To GOP:

Quote

The state Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Election Code “does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots...based on an analysis of a voter’s signature.”

The court directed election officials not to reject ballots based on signature comparisons by election officials, or “as the result of third- party challenges based on such comparisons.”

[Carborendum]

18 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Colorado, for example is not Pennsylvania. Safeguards in one state may not apply in other states.
Forbes - Pennsylvania Ballots Can’t Be Thrown Out For Mismatched Signatures, Court Rules In Blow To GOP:

Yup.  No fraud at all.  Signatures are ALWAYS a perfect match. The court said so. And they're completely unbiased.

[NeuroTypical]

My buddy Hugh often has the gift to concisely crystalize what I'm thinking. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't understand why more Europeans fail to grasp that. I can only imagine it is because Europeans are far enough divorced from their governments that they don't really pay attention to such matters.

If I meet any Europeans I'll ask them!

Believe it or not, I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote that. I had in mind continental European acquaintances who are and have been all in for Democrats and Trump-hating.

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

and two Indians (though one of them might be a Pakistani - I'm not sure).

Yeah, there's a mistake you do not want to make.

[Jamie123]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Yeah, there's a mistake you do not want to make.

Indeed. And the worst insult for an Iranian is to call him an Arab. (To really annoy him, pronounce it Ey-Rab.)

[Vort]

Just now, Jamie123 said:

Indeed. And the worst insult for an Iranian is to call him an Arab. (To really annoy him, pronounce it Ey-Rab.)

When I came home from my mission service in Italy, I heard my mother say "Eye-talian", and it just sounded soooo wrong. But I realized that that's mostly how I had pronounced the word for my whole life until then. English is totally the best.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Whereas if they were liberal they would put their dislike of Trump above truth, evidence and the law? But since they're conservatives, we need not fear!

 

I don’t want to be overly and unnecessarily denigrating to Americans on the opposite side of the political aisle.  But the answer to your question is, fundamentally, “yes”.  That’s what “living constitutionalism” is—the view that (if our motives are pure enough) what we want a statute to mean is more important than what the statute’s  text or historical  context or commonly-accepted interpretation would dictate.

An originalist (read: “conservative”, at least for most practical purposes) judge should be able to point to numerous instances where she felt compelled to rule in a way she personally disliked.  A progressive judge will have a much harder time giving you examples of that having occurred; because in his eyes making good law to achieve “justice” (as he understands it) is, to some degree, a natural and legitimate part of his job.

I have much more faith in a conservative court to uphold a Biden victory, than I would in a progressive court to uphold a Trump one.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Scott]

9 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Why didn't he cross your signature out and put his own in next to it?

Because he's 18. 'nuff said.

Yes, that's what should have been done.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Scott

[estradling75]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have much more faith in a conservative court to uphold a Biden victory, than I would in a progressive court to uphold a Trump one.

Exactly this....   I fully support the rule of law...  Biden can claim a win, Trump can claim fraud...  and if it comes down to it the Court will make a ruling and that will be the end of the story..  (And I am predicting the while court might find something but ultimately not enough to give Trump the win, so this is not me trying to take the high ground because I think my side is going to win)

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t want to be overly and unnecessarily denigrating to Americans on the opposite side of the political aisle.  But the answer to your question is, fundamentally, “yes”.  That’s what “living constitutionalism” is—the view that (if our motives are pure enough) what we want a statute to mean is more important than what the statute’s  text or historical  context or commonly-accepted interpretation would dictate.

An originalist (read: “conservative”, at least for most practical purposes) judge should be able to point to numerous instances where she felt compelled to rule in a way she personally disliked.  A progressive judge will have a much harder time giving you examples of that having occurred; because in his eyes making good law to achieve “justice” (as he understands it) is, to some degree, a natural and legitimate part of his job.

I have much more faith in a conservative court to uphold a Biden victory, than I would in a progressive court to uphold a Trump one.

Generally speaking I have more faith in what we politically think of conservative over what we think of liberal in the current political climate.  But I am beginning to think that it is not going to matter that much over the next few years.  I am of the opinion that COVID-19 has had a profound effect on the world - especially the world economy.  Realizing that I can seldom have enough insight to predict a sporting outcome - let alone things much more important.  Yet, I wonder how we can avoid an global economic collapse of pronounced proportions worse than the great depression.  I have seen out of control inflation.  As a engineer fresh out of college I started at $10,000 a year and struggled to purchase a $24,000 home (new construction).   Within 10 years I was making over 400% more - most of which was keeping up with inflation.   With all the credit and printed money it is hard to not expect a 100% and more inflation rate over the next 4 years.  

If our borders become more open - I do not see how what is called stagflation can be avoided (stagflation is when the cost of living {durable goods} increases faster than wages).  I believe such things to be engines of resentment, class distinction and war.  I believe we could easily see a WWIII within 4 years - and we could go through in a civil war here in the USA as well.   All these things are things I have expected to occur before the return of Christ.  

We live in a most exciting time - especially for the Kingdom of G-d and the covenants of Christ.

 

The Traveler

[scottyg]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

…and we could go through in a civil war here in the USA as well.

Personally, I would be very surprised if a great division does not take place before the second coming. I don't think a war would be necessary...I don't think either side would actually fight to keep the other around at this point...but money and natural resources would be the deciding factors. Regardless, I cannot see our nation staying together as one before his arrival. States could divide as individuals, but I find it more likely that there will be 2 main groups (left and right) and states will choose which group to join - similar to 2 nations; though borders of like-minded states many not always touch, causing more problems.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/9/2020 at 8:31 AM, NeedleinA said:

Trump doesn't need to concede the election just because news outlets claim it is over. News outlets, tweeter feeds, Youtube videos, etc. don't determine the presidency of the Untied States.

Neither do the voters. The State Legislature is the final say in every Presidential election.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Generally speaking I have more faith in what we politically think of conservative over what we think of liberal in the current political climate.  But I am beginning to think that it is not going to matter that much over the next few years.  I am of the opinion that COVID-19 has had a profound effect on the world - especially the world economy.  Realizing that I can seldom have enough insight to predict a sporting outcome - let alone things much more important.  Yet, I wonder how we can avoid an global economic collapse of pronounced proportions worse than the great depression.  I have seen out of control inflation.  As a engineer fresh out of college I started at $10,000 a year and struggled to purchase a $24,000 home (new construction).   Within 10 years I was making over 400% more - most of which was keeping up with inflation.   With all the credit and printed money it is hard to not expect a 100% and more inflation rate over the next 4 years.  

If our borders become more open - I do not see how what is called stagflation can be avoided (stagflation is when the cost of living {durable goods} increases faster than wages).  I believe such things to be engines of resentment, class distinction and war.  I believe we could easily see a WWIII within 4 years - and we could go through in a civil war here in the USA as well.   All these things are things I have expected to occur before the return of Christ.  

We live in a most exciting time - especially for the Kingdom of G-d and the covenants of Christ.

 

The Traveler

I wonder.  I do expect things to get worse than most folks are imagining, maybe in the next 20 years.  On the other hand:  

1) One would think that an influx of cheap labor would tend to keep the cost of goods and services down.  At this particular moment I’d be more worried about stagflation being triggered by a minimum wage increase than by immigration.

2) At least locally—our church leadership has been warning us, like nobody’s business, to get out of debt posthaste.  That leads me to believe that whatever’s coming in the short term—society and government will at least be funcional enough that standard debt-collection processes will remain operational.  I can see a depression and rising crime coming soon; but mass violence or a political collapse—that seems less likely, at least in the very short term.

And the Church itself isn’t acting like the apocalypse is coming.  They are building and renovating temples, and accumulating massive holdings in paper investment accounts whose value would evaporate in a second if there were no longer a government ensuring stability.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1. They are building and renovating temples,
2. accumulating massive holdings in paper investment accounts

All the 'signs' are there man!
1. Defensive fortresses with blast shields and bunkers now.
2. "Toilet" paper investment accounts

The world needs to see what is 'really' going on!😉

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wonder.  I do expect things to get worse than most folks are imagining, maybe in the next 20 years.  On the other hand:  

1) One would think that an influx of cheap labor would tend to keep the cost of goods and services down.  At this particular moment I’d be more worried about stagflation being triggered by a minimum wage increase than by immigration.

2) At least locally—our church leadership has been warning us, like nobody’s business, to get out of debt posthaste.  That leads me to believe that whatever’s coming in the short term—society and government will at least be funcional enough that standard debt-collection processes will remain operational.  I can see a depression and rising crime coming soon; but mass violence or a political collapse—that seems less likely, at least in the very short term.

And the Church itself isn’t acting like the apocalypse is coming.  They are building and renovating temples, and accumulating massive holdings in paper investment accounts whose value would evaporate in a second if there were no longer a government ensuring stability.

Thanks for your input.  This last year has convinced me that a lot can change over a very short period of time.  If things continue, I can see the possibility that next year could conclude our wait for Christ - but I am not predicting it to be so - just possible.  And in reference to a coming apocalypse? Is that not the generally accepted term in reference to the return of Christ and the events that lead up to that return?

 

The Traveler