Divided Country

[LDSGator]

16 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

We've seen instances of problematic Democrats (all in solid blue seats, notably, see my above observation) being thrown to the wolves by their own party (Rod Blagojevich, Anthony Weiner, Al Franken, Andrew Cuomo).

Trent Lott, Larry Craig, Todd Akin,  and Mark Foley would like to speak to you. All were correctly thrown to the wolves after their screw ups. 
 

Every side has scumbags and people you wouldn't want anywhere near you. 

[LDSGator]

And to be fair, I knew many liberals who still support Franken and Cuomo to this day. Much like how the left defended Clinton during the 90’s after his 44th sex scandal. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by LDSGator

[Still_Small_Voice]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Only allowing two days of voting.  Why?  Absentee ballots should only be allowed by the military or people soliciting for an absentee ballot with a valid reason. Why?  No same day voter registration either.  People should be registered to vote at least 21 days before an election.  Why?

Why? These all seem like pretty arbitrary policies that would make it harder for people to vote, but not necessarily prevent the kind of fraud you claim is happening.

You have not looked into the lack of security in vote by mail.  Who is ballot harvesting?  (Look up ballot harvesting and what it is along with ballot curing.)  Who is actually voting?  Where are all these ballots coming from?  Who is handling the ballots?  Most of these questions are answered by citizens showing up to vote with valid identification.  I am also for paper ballots as it leaves evidence versus just computers tallying votes.  I do not want voting machines connected to the Internet either as they can be remotely hacked.

Why only two days to vote?  Because it gives people who are trying to do voter fraud less time.  If many voting polls are opened on the day before election day (08:00 to 21:00 hours servicing everyone in line before 21:00 hours) and on election day people have adequate time to vote.

Why no same day voter registration?  Hello, my name is John Smith, and I am here to vote.  Same man moves to another voting poll.  Hi, my name is Jeff Jones, and I am here to vote.  Same man moves to another voting poll.  Hello, my name is Sam Smith, and I am here to vote.

All these safe guards were in place to help protect the integrity of the vote in the past and now many of them are gone in vote by mail months ahead of election day.  No system is full proof, but vote by mail is the least secure of all voting methods.

[Vort]

I'm not @Traveler, but let me offer some ideas.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why? [allowing only two days of voting]

I would imagine to narrow the time period in which casting a ballot is legal so as to temporally constrict any ballot falsification to a narrower time range.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why? [absentee ballots only for military or those with a valid reason]

The reason is contained within the name "absentee ballot". In-person voting seems in principle easier to police and verify identity.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why? {voter registration required at least 21 days before voting] These all seem like pretty arbitrary policies that would make it harder for people to vote, but not necessarily prevent the kind of fraud you claim is happening.

I don't see how it would increase the voting burden to a significant degree. If anything, it weeds out the casual voter, which is not a bad thing. And while it may not "necessarily" prevent voter fraud, it might indeed prevent it, or at least decrease it. That would be a huge win.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

This is just a theory, and I don't really have much to back it up except for my own recent and limited experience politics, but perhaps lopsided political districts are easier to corrupt than close ones. If one party is pretty much guaranteed victory in every election, then what incentive is there to play by the rules? I'm not saying that everything is 100% copacetic in more competitive areas (more on that in a moment), but closer elections tend to be watched more closely by both parties. 

Your argument works exactly counter to your claim. If one party is pretty much guaranteed victory, as you say, then what incentive is there to cheat? You're already guaranteed a win. Cheating is far more likely to be important when the position or item is contested.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

We've seen instances of problematic Democrats (all in solid blue seats, notably, see my above observation) being thrown to the wolves by their own party (Rod Blagojevich, Anthony Weiner, Al Franken, Andrew Cuomo).

Hmm. Seems to me that when their corruption was finally so over-the-top that they could no longer be hidden or excused, then they were publicly crucified. Why isn't Joe Biden currently being ousted by these same honorable, fair-minded Democrats? It's not like there is any real doubt remaining about his dealings with Hunter's issues, just a lack of willingness to publish that information—a problem that has been ongoing since 2020.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why? [military service for exercising the franchise]

So that only those who have skin in the game and who have demonstrated a willingness to make personal sacrifice will be helping determine the country's direction.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

And what about people who are physically unable to serve in the military?

All such service-for-franchise ideas include a way for those unable to serve in traditional military to offer their sacrifice in some other meaningful way.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why does ownership of property matter?

Skin in the game. I'm not personally a big fan of this one; it reeks of English hierarchical classes. But the reasoning behind it is clear enough.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Last I checked, this was the 21st Century, not the 18th.

Pretty sure people were people, then as well as now. Not sure what the century argument you're trying to make is.

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Like S_S_V, you seem to have some arbitrary ideas of who should be able to vote and how.

That you disagree with his ideas does not make them arbitrary.

[zil2]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Homeless individual cannot vote – only residents.

Why does ownership of property matter?

He's not saying they have to own property, he's saying they have to have a residential address (aka live) in the voting district - not be transient.  The why for this should be obvious - we elect people to represent the people in a geographic area.  If you can't prove you live in the geographic area, why should we let you vote on who represents said geographic area?

[NeuroTypical]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:03 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Losing elections is a lucrative business, it seems.

 

I know, right?

 

 

 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

I know, right?

 

 

 

I'm not going to defend any of them. That said, what irks me isn't necessarily the fundraising. Politicians are professional fundraisers. I imagine I'll probably be spending a significant part of next year helping my local DFL reps raise money. What irks me is the attempts to normalize unconceding denialism. That's the difference. Gore, Clinton, and Abrams may have been reluctant to concede their races, but they conceded. A lot of politicians are sore losers, and that's bipartisan. But there's a difference between disagreeing with an election result and actively underming public trust in our democratic process. 

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Hmm. Seems to me that when their corruption was finally so over-the-top that they could no longer be hidden or excused, then they were publicly crucified. Why isn't Joe Biden currently being ousted by these same honorable, fair-minded Democrats? It's not like there is any real doubt remaining about his dealings with Hunter's issues, just a lack of willingness to publish that information—a problem that has been ongoing since 2020.

All I'm going to say about this is that there's a considerable portion of leftists who would be perfectly content to see Joe and Hunter as cellmates. Maybe they could form their own gang with Trump and the January 6th "tourists".

4 hours ago, Vort said:

So that only those who have skin in the game and who have demonstrated a willingness to make personal sacrifice will be helping determine the country's direction.

On this we're going to fundamentally disagree because I view voting as a right, not a privilege. Like some rights, it can be revoked, but it doesn't need to be earned. I served in the Army for 10 years, so I take rights pretty seriously, including your right to disagree with me. 😉

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Pretty sure people were people, then as well as now. Not sure what the century argument you're trying to make is.

A lot of people weren't legally people back then, and property ownership was a requirement to vote. The requirement of having an established address is less restrictive, and I'll confess that I'm not sure what a good workaround would be to accommodate the homeless, aside from eradicating homelessness.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Phoenix_person

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

On this we're going to fundamentally disagree because I view voting as a right, not a privilege.

It is not immediately obvious to me why voting, either on initiatives or perhaps even for representative leadership, is a right. I am not arguing that it is not, just that it is not clear to me why it should be so considered. That seems not unlike saying that serving as a judge is a right—which clearly it is not. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

29 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

A lot of people weren't legally people back then, and property ownership was a requirement to vote.

I am sure you realize that the "not legally people" argument is leftist nonsense, used to score emotional points by supposing that no one is astute enough to perceive the outrageous lie right before their eyes, or perhaps brave enough to speak aloud the seditious words that the king is well and truly naked. Of course people were legally people. Outside of serfdom and other forms of slavery, where recognition of people as societal members was intentionally withheld (and at times even then), societies throughout human history have recognized people as people: Male people, female people, child people, old people, foreign people—in some cultures even slave people, even in European society. Even in—**gasp**—American society! Through Britain's long, tortuous history of class division, the so-called lower classes were still recognized as people.

That the concept of societal place was recognized and enforced by law does not mean people were not recognized as such. Yes, some were valued more than others, as for example we have seen in our society for a generation or three (though that has been legally overturned by the Supreme Court, so maybe things will get better there). But not "legally people"? Nonsense.

[Phoenix_person]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is not immediately obvious to me why voting, either on initiatives or perhaps even for representative leadership, is a right. I am not arguing that it is not, just that it is not clear to me why it should be so considered. That seems not unlike saying that serving as a judge is a right—which clearly it is not. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I'll start at the most basic level. You live in a town or city. Elected officials in your city/town/parish/whatever make decisions that directly affect your community, perhaps even you personally. Arguably, these elected officials have more influence on your immediate quality of life than anyone in DC. I believe that citizens have an inherent right to decide who makes these decisions, decisions that determine how their tax dollars are spent (again, more so than anyone in DC) and what kind of community they'll be living in. 

From there, you can expand the reasoning to a national level. After all, Congress and the president make decisions that affect all of us to some degree or another. Why should it be a privilege to decide who makes those decisions? Taxes aren't going anywhere in this country, and so long as people are paying taxes, shouldn't they get to decide who spends that money? No taxation without representation, right?

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Outside of serfdom and other forms of slavery, 

This is exactly and exclusively what I was referring to.

[LDSGator]

8 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'll start at the most basic level. You live in a town or city. Elected officials in your city/town/parish/whatever make decisions that directly affect your community, perhaps even you personally. Arguably, these elected officials have more influence on your immediate quality of life than anyone in DC. I believe that citizens have an inherent right to decide who makes these decisions, decisions that determine how their tax dollars are spent (again, more so than anyone in DC) and what kind of community they'll be living in. 

From there, you can expand the reasoning to a national level. After all, Congress and the president make decisions that affect all of us to some degree or another. Why should it be a privilege to decide who makes those decisions? Taxes aren't going anywhere in this country, and so long as people are paying taxes, shouldn't they get to decide who spends that money? No taxation without representation, right?

This is exactly and exclusively what I was referring to.

Let’s ask the Russians and the French how it went when the dirty peasants weren’t allowed to have a say in how they lived their lives! 

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

What irks me is the attempts to normalize unconceding denialism. That's the difference. Gore, Clinton, and Abrams may have been reluctant to concede their races, but they conceded. A lot of politicians are sore losers, and that's bipartisan. But there's a difference between disagreeing with an election result and actively underming public trust in our democratic process. 

Um, @Phoenix_person?  Trump did concede the election on Jan 7 2021 at 5:10 pm.

https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1347334804052844550?s=46&t=X5qcMifsD8E7ppEtCxaqJw

 

I think part of why we are so divided, is we forget to take relevant facts into account when they don’t help our narrative. I don’t blame you for not knowing this, but I do blame you for your choice of news sources. (And of course I blame Twitter for censoring Trump’s concession speech until Elon bought the whole dang company and uncensored the video.)

Perhaps in your various circles, you could help spread the information that Trump did indeed concede the election? I mean, yes, he did it late, later than Gore did. But he did do it.

Edited August 15, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Um, @Phoenix_person?  Trump did concede the election on Jan 7 2021 at 5:10 pm.

https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1347334804052844550?s=46&t=X5qcMifsD8E7ppEtCxaqJw

 

I think part of why we are so divided, is we forget to take relevant facts into account when they don’t help our narrative. I don’t blame you for not knowing this, but I do blame you for your choice of news sources. (And of course I blame Twitter for censoring this information until Elon bought the whole dang company and uncensored the video.)

Perhaps in your various circles, you could help spread the information that Trump did indeed concede the election? I mean, yes, he did it late, later than Gore did. But he did do it.

Him conceding means very little when he still endorses the “stolen election” narrative at every single corner. Also, if he really felt that way he should have “conceded” long before it got the level it did at Jan 6th. 

[NeuroTypical]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Him conceding means very little when he still endorses the “stolen election” narrative at every single corner. Also, if he really felt that way he should have “conceded” long before it got the level it did at Jan 6th. 

These are all good points that can be well argued. But @Phoenix_person  was claiming that Trump did not concede. And Trump conceded.

Again, I just posted a video with 24 minutes of Democrats, including former presidents and current Congress people, how many federal and state level, claiming conceded elections were stolen.  Many of them continue to endorse the “stolen election“ narrative, as long as it was politically advantageous to do so.  Yes, Trump did it. The Democrats do it a lot, across decades. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them. Whenever it suits their purposes.

[LDSGator]

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

These are all good points that can be well argued. But @Phoenix_person  was claiming that Trump did not concede. And Trump conceded.

Again, I just posted a video with 24 minutes of Democrats, including former presidents and current Congress people, how many federal and state level, claiming conceded elections were stolen.  Many of them continue to endorse the “stolen election“ narrative, as long as it was politically advantageous to do so.  Yes, Trump did it. The Democrats do it a lot, across decades. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them. Whenever it suits their purposes.

Your points are all great too, as always.
 

Losers make excuses, winners don’t. Simple and blunt. It’s human nature and politicians are human. 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Um, @Phoenix_person?  Trump did concede the election on Jan 7 2021 at 5:10 pm.

https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1347334804052844550?s=46&t=X5qcMifsD8E7ppEtCxaqJw

 

I think part of why we are so divided, is we forget to take relevant facts into account when they don’t help our narrative. I don’t blame you for not knowing this, but I do blame you for your choice of news sources. (And of course I blame Twitter for censoring Trump’s concession speech until Elon bought the whole dang company and uncensored the video.)

Perhaps in your various circles, you could help spread the information that Trump did indeed concede the election? I mean, yes, he did it late, later than Gore did. But he did do it.

You're right. I stand corrected. And you're right that using TwiXter as a primary news source definitely was a detriment in this case. It doesn't change the fact that Trump illegally tried to pressure Georgia officials to "find" 11,000 votes, or that he tweeted this while there were rioters in the Capitol building actively looking for Mike Pence.

Again, I'm not excusing the sore loser behavior of Democrats, but I hope you can see why I have a particular amount contempt for Trump in particular. I took the same oath that every other government employee does, including Trump. I may not be bound to it anymore, but I still take it very seriously.

[Grunt]

On 8/14/2023 at 2:59 PM, Phoenix_person said:

you seem to have some arbitrary ideas of who should be able to vote and how.

Whether or not I agree with them, they aren't arbitrary.  They are all ideas floated or used in the past to decrease fraud and/or require the voter to be a stakeholder.

[Traveler]

@Phoenix_person

@Phoenix_person Glad to have you commenting on the forum.  You had put some questions to me that have been answered quite well by others – However, I would add a few thoughts.  @Vort  talked about skin in the game concerning military obligation as a criteria for citizenship.    I would have you consider other things – for example we have recently had problems with individuals engaging in mass shootings.   I believe it would be a deterrent for anyone entering even a grade school where all the adults had professional combat training and were expertly trained in the use of firearms.  Every teacher, assistant teachers, school administrator, janitors or parents that may be visiting the school for their children’s activities is combat trained and issued a firearm.  Any single shooter would be outmanned and outgunned.   I believe such citizen capabilities would be a deterrent to almost any crime – including and especially violent crime.  Especially if criminal elements were carefully screened for military service. 

Another thought.  I spent my career as an engineer, first working for the Defense department, then in the private sector in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   Though I have never worked with voting machines – I trust them much more than humans and old faction hard copies.  For any automated “machine” there are published requirements and test scripts available for users.  Someone like myself, and perhaps even others that post on this forum, are capable of validating capabilities of automated equipment.  Human paper trails and human mistakes (deliberate or accidental) are extremely difficult to metric or have precise proof – including the extent of possible effect.  Automation companies love to claim propitiatory technology – but they cannot circumvent published capabilities.  There are thousands of engineers capable of hacking (analyzing and reverse engineering) any automated device.  Cheating via automated device leaves a very hard copy trail of who exactly is responsible.

For my final thought – I would reference an expert in voting fixing, named Joseph Stalin.  In essence, he said that it does not matter who votes or even what or whom they vote for – the only thing that matters is who is counting the ballots and how the ballots are counted.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Though I have never worked with voting machines – I trust them much more than humans and old faction hard copies.  For any automated “machine” there are published requirements and test scripts available for users.  Someone like myself, and perhaps even others that post on this forum, are capable of validating capabilities of automated equipment.  Human paper trails and human mistakes (deliberate or accidental) are extremely difficult to metric or have precise proof – including the extent of possible effect.  Automation companies love to claim propitiatory technology – but they cannot circumvent published capabilities.  There are thousands of engineers capable of hacking (analyzing and reverse engineering) any automated device.  Cheating via automated device leaves a very hard copy trail of who exactly is responsible.

This says it better than I can:

Source.

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Again, I'm not excusing the sore loser behavior of Democrats, but I hope you can see why I have a particular amount contempt for Trump in particular. I took the same oath that every other government employee does, including Trump. I may not be bound to it anymore, but I still take it very seriously.

I understand and respect your position.  I listened to several active and retired military folks wondering aloud what their oath might make them do, if Trump didn't leave.  I remember being relieved I wasn't in a similar situation, yet I was worried about things getting so far I would have to pick sides. 

I tracked how the 2020 election played out very carefully.  As we moved through November, and the left grew more and more shrill about Trump's horrendously evil refusal to accept the results, I reminded probably thousands of people that 20 years ago, Gore was doing the exact same thing, but with more lawyers.   The entire nation was held hostage to Gore's refusal to concede, Broward County changing rules for counting votes in ways that favored Gore.  December week 1 went by.  The Florida supreme court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes.  Unprecedented refusal from Gore to just deal with the fact that he lost.  December week 2 saw SCOTUS get involved.  The right screamed about the damage Gore was doing by refusing to deal with reality.  The left screamed about election fraud and stolen elections and most other things we were hearing Trump and team saying.  SCOTUS called it for Bush on Dec. 12.

On Dec 13 2020, I began to seriously worry.   The rest of the month I hoped we'd have a conclusion by Christmas.  Then I hoped for a conclusion by New Year's.  Trump's claims got more and more far fetched.  His constant tweeting of One America News Network stories saw me lose all respect for his claim, and most of the respect I had for him.  

Jan 6th I sat in my basement on covid lockdown, doing my remote job on one monitor, watching the trump rally on the 2nd monitor.  Listening to Guiliani blather and bloat, listening to Don Jr. shout about open rebellion and marching to stop things had me more worried than I think I'd ever been since a teenager thinking about nuclear war and "The button". I remember I went upstairs and told my wife I had lost all understanding of what Trump was doing, and the tone of his rally was energizing the dumbest and most insane people there to do something horrible.   He seemed to be weaponizing the stupid on purpose, and I didn't understand why.  Then the march reached the capitol and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

As things stand today, I'm worried Trump will be the nominee.  I'm torn - part of me wants to see him convicted and imprisoned.  Another part of me sees the possibility he'll be elected anyway, and will start his term in prison, where he'll pardon himself.  I worry about the potential harm a Trump v. Biden II election could do to this nation.

Edited August 16, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Still_Small_Voice]

I really respect Jordan Peterson.  He said it would be best if the Republicans picked someone else other than Donald Trump as he was too controversial.  I agree.

But Trump will likely win the Republican nomination as a candidate for President.  

And NeuroTypical, a President cannot pardon himself.  He has no authority to do it.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

And NeuroTypical, a President cannot pardon himself.  He has no authority to do it.

US Constitution, Article II, section 2:

Quote

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Could you tell me where it says that Trump couldn't pardon himself for convictions springing from his various indictments?  Here they are (as of today), and I don't see the word "impeachment" anywhere:

Federal indictments:
Indictment related to classified government documents, in which Trump faces 40 criminal counts alleging mishandling of sensitive documents and conspiracy to obstruct the government in retrieving these documents. 

Indictment related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in which Trump faces four criminal counts of conspiring to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. The trial is not yet scheduled.

State indictments:
New York, where Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree related to payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. The trial is scheduled for March 2024.

Georgia, where Trump faces 13 criminal counts related to alleged attempts to overturn Joe Biden's victory in Georgia. The trial is not yet scheduled.

 

As for his two impeachments, neither one ever made it past the house, and neither one said dude couldn't run for president again.  

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

dude couldn't run for president again.  

It’s a moot point if you don’t win. He already lost to Biden once, and it seems like republicans didn’t learn anything from it. 😞 

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

It’s a moot point if you don’t win. He already lost to Biden once, and it seems like republicans didn’t learn anything from it. 😞 

Some of us did. Conservatives--especially religious conservative--have the judges we wanted. What can Trump do for the movement now? If he's the nominee, some will vote "No Labels," some will actually vote Democrat, a few will still vote Trump, and others may just not vote. Enough of most of that and Biden wins. 

[Carborendum]

24 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Some of us did. Conservatives--especially religious conservative--have the judges we wanted. What can Trump do for the movement now? If he's the nominee, some will vote "No Labels," some will actually vote Democrat, a few will still vote Trump, and others may just not vote. Enough of most of that and Biden wins. 

It's true.  I've decided not to vote for Trump.  I'm certainly not voting for Biden.  So, if it ends up being between them or Trumps v. Newsom, I'm not voting.  It doesn't make a difference anymore.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

 

Some of us did.

Maybe, but not a large enough majority to influence the GOP. Like it or not, many moderates and even some conservatives are so turned off by him and his more hardcore followers that we refuse to even consider voting republican if he’s the nominee. 
 

What’s really sad? Joe Biden could be beaten by anyone but Trump. We are begging the GOP to nominate a plastic bag over Trump. But he’ll probably be the nominee.