YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



"Frankly, we did win this election." * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia "wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing".

Trumps dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been "at the store, shopping for airhorns." We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasnt yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is "far from over" and promising an intense legal fight.

"The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor," the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

"Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots," he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[AgnosticBoy]

This is evidence of you not acknowledging that there are scenarios where voter ID is NOT required at the time of voting.

Where the voter had already been IDed, yes. That's what I told you.

When they show up to the voting polls, you are not ID'd in all cases. The scenario I'm referring to is when you are not ID'd.. Being ID'd during voter registration is different than being ID'd during the time of voting. The gap between voter registration and the actual time of voting can be years since you don't have to register every year.

When you leave out select information from my source that would support my point (in my case the info. that supported my point was the very first sentence), and then you conflate ID given during registration with ID shown at voting, then that will give a very misleading picture, which I am forced to expose and clean up.

[Purple Knight]

"I can't prove it's a problem, so we have to do stuff to prevent it." I don't see that as a good argument.

Then let's never have any sort of measure in any contest of any sort to prevent cheating. For instance, let's test only one bodybuilder a year for steroids. If he's positive, wow, we're doing enough, because you see, we caught the cheater. That's proof that cheating doesn't work. And if he's negative, that's just proof nobody is cheating.

Since we'll never catch the ones we don't catch, there will never be proof positive of successful cheating, and in your book that means it's a fair game?

In my book, if I'm busting my glutes (and all my other muscles) building up, calorie packing and eating stuff I hate to load myself with enough protein to make my muscles grow far beyond what Nature intended, then starving myself before the contest to achieve the kind of definition they want (this is something I've done, albeit at the amateur level) I don't care if I have no evidence the other guy is taking steroids. I want him tested. And if the other guy wants me tested, I don't pretend the fact that he has no evidence of me juicing is a superior position - I hold out my arm.

[The Barbarian]

"I can't prove it's a problem, so we have to do stuff to prevent it." I don't see that as a good argument.

Then let's never have any sort of measure in any contest of any sort to prevent cheating.

We should do it wherever there's evidence that it's a problem. There's been huge numbers of people trying to find voter fraud. No one has been able to find a significant number of people voting fraudulently. On the other hand, there's abundant evidence of voter suppression. So that's a problem we should do first.

For instance, let's test only one bodybuilder a year for steroids. If he's positive, wow, we're doing enough, because you see, we caught the cheater. That's proof that cheating doesn't work. And if he's negative, that's just proof nobody is cheating.

The problem with that, of course, is that investigators found many, many cases of such cheating. Hence, there is a lot of checking, because it's a known problem.

Since we'll never catch the ones we don't catch,

But if it happens, we can catch it. And do. As you have seen, those who actually do vote illegally tend to be caught, because the system is set up that way. "Voter fraud" tends to be mostly in the area of keeping qualified voters from voting; repeated examples of that have been found by the courts. For years the republican party was under court supervision to keep them from using "ballot security" as an excuse to suppress voting, after they had been repeatedly caught fraudulently preventing qualified voters from voting.

So it's not as thought the current effort is a new thing; they've been doing it for years.

[The Barbarian]

When they show up to the voting polls, you are not ID'd in all cases. The scenario I'm referring to is when you are not ID'd.. Being ID'd during voter registration is different than being ID'd during the time of voting. The gap between voter registration and the actual time of voting can be years since you don't have to register every year.

If you're right, then it should be easy to find lots of illegal votes in such states. Republicans have been trying for years. What do you have to show us?

[Purple Knight]

"I can't prove it's a problem, so we have to do stuff to prevent it." I don't see that as a good argument.

Then let's never have any sort of measure in any contest of any sort to prevent cheating.

We should do it wherever there's evidence that it's a problem.

Evidence which there can never be, because the evidence you want is evidence of people getting away with it - in other words, catching the ones we didn't catch. If we had ever only tested one bodybuilder a year, there would be an equal lack of numbers of confirmed cheaters and a total lack of evidence that enough people were cheating to do anything more. We have evidence that bodybuilders and professional athletes are a cesspool of steroid use precisely because it's natural for oversight to overreach. How much cheating do we think there might be? Check 'em all. And check the ones we only slightly suspect too.

I want everyone to be able to vote. Yes, everyone. Illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and children. If you live under a set of rules, you have a right to a say in those rules. But now after the Gore and Trump fiascos, I won't trust that the process is fair unless everyone has a chip in their arm inserted at birth and all voting is done in-person. Don't have a chip? Well, as long as you don't have a scar where you just dug yours out, you get one, no other questions asked. If people really can't leave work have the voting booth come to them. I don't think there's anywhere that can't spare their employees a 15-minute break.

But if it happens, we can catch it. And do. As you have seen, those who actually do vote illegally tend to be caught, because the system is set up that way.

I can't attest to that until better measures are implemented with more transparency. We know some people cheat. We don't know how many are caught, or what percent of the total this represents. Gore and Florida were red flags to me. So were votes found in the garbage, no matter how few of them. They were only found because someone happened to find them. How do I know, now, that my ballot wasn't thrown in the garbage? I don't. I don't know that, and I have every right to demand that I be given transparency until I do know that.

Voter fraud and voter suppression are one and the same. Every instance of voter fraud is literally an instance of voter suppression. Every time one side gets an extra, the other side gets one less. More security all-around, please.

[The Barbarian]

Republicans, realizing that they can no longer win if everyone votes, are seeking to stop people from voting:

Republicans considering more than 100 bills to restrict voting rights
After an election filled with misinformation and lies about fraud, Republicans have doubled down with a surge of bills to further restrict voting access in recent months, according to a new analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.

There are currently 106 pending bills across 28 states that would restrict access to voting, according to the data. Thats a sharp increase from nearly a year ago, when there were 35 restrictive bills pending across 15 states.

Among the Brennan Centers findings:

More than a third of the bills would place new restrictions on voting by mail

Pennsylvania has 14 pending proposals for new voter restrictions, the most in the country. Its followed by New Hampshire (11), Missouri (9), and Mississippi, New Jersey and Texas (8)

There are seven bills across four states that would limit opportunities for election day registration

There are also 406 bills that would expand voting access pending across 35 states, including in New York (56), Texas (53), New Jersey (37), Mississippi (39) and Missouri (21)

The restrictions come on the heels of an election in which there was record turnout and Democrat and Republican election officials alike said there was no evidence of widespread wrongdoing or fraud. There were recounts, audits and lawsuits across many states to back up those assurances. Federal and state officials called the election "the most secure in American history".

[The Barbarian]

Evidence which there can never be,

I showed you repeatedly that people cheating are getting caught. There just aren't very many of them trying it.

because the evidence you want is evidence of people getting away with it - in other words, catching the ones we didn't catch.

No, I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that voter fraud is very rare. You're arguing that because there's so little evidence for cheating, there must be many cheaters. Not a very good argument, I think.

If we had ever only tested one bodybuilder a year,

If we only applied existing controls on voter fraud in one case...

But as you see, it's not the case. The system regularly catches the very few people who vote illegally. They are usually, but not always, republicans.

I want everyone to be able to vote. Yes, everyone. Illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and children.

But you are advocating steps republicans have admitted are designed to keep legal voters from voting. It's not a new thing:

For the past 40 years, the party organization has been bound by a "consent decree" secured in federal court in 1982. As a result, the GOP was barred from engaging in these kinds of "election security" campaigns, which seem to be little more than efforts at voter intimidation and election interference.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/republica ... t-n1243482

"So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
Right-wing activist Paul Weyrich
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/i-d ... ppression/

If you live under a set of rules, you have a right to a say in those rules. But now after the Gore and Trump fiascos, I won't trust that the process is fair unless everyone has a chip in their arm inserted at birth and all voting is done in-person. Don't have a chip? Well, as long as you don't have a scar where you just dug yours out, you get one, no other questions asked. If people really can't leave work have the voting booth come to them. I don't think there's anywhere that can't spare their employees a 15-minute break.

I don't think a chip is going to work. There are legitimate reasons to fear such a move. It's not just the QAnon cultists who would howl in objection. Most libertarians would hate it. I'd be happy to entertain the idea of "bring the voting to work", but the republicans would never stand for it. Here's what they are working on:

Arizona Republican introduced a bill to let state legislature overturn results in a presidential election
A top Arizona Republican who promoted a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2020 election has introduced a bill that would allow legislators override the certification of the state's top elections official and effectively overturn the results of a future presidential election.

Rep. Shawnna Bolick, a Phoenix-area Republican, does not dispute her own reelection in November. But after Donald Trump lost his bid for another term, she sought to block electors from casting their votes for the winner, President Joe Biden, despite the election having already been certified by Arizona's Secretary of State.
https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-republic ... 52200.html

But if it happens, we can catch it. And do. As you have seen, those who actually do vote illegally tend to be caught, because the system is set up that way.

I can't attest to that until better measures are implemented with more transparency. We know some people cheat. We don't know how many are caught, or what percent of the total this represents.

Since we know the system catches cheaters, and since repeated investigations have all found that cheating is very rare in voting, you're still looking for a rational reason to change things. When you can show there's a problem, we can move on to solutions. Bringing the voting booth to job sites is a good idea, but I don't think employers would go for it.

[quote[Gore and Florida were red flags to me. [/quote]

I don't see fraud there; it was basically that the election was so close that things like sloppily-completed ballots became a big deal. No one said any voter fraud was involved. Gore finally withdrew because it was so close, and he didn't want to put the country through a crisis thereby.

So were votes found in the garbage, no matter how few of them.

More Biden votes than Trump votes. But such sweeps of counting areas are SOP in most states. So it's not surprising they were found. Additional security is legal, as long as it doesn't serve to keep voters from voting.

What we are seeing on the right, is what Weyrich predicted. Fewer and fewer Americans accept far-right or white nationalist ideas. Weyrich's solution was to limit who can vote. The problem now,as seen in Georgia, is that the changing electorate is turning states blue. Arizona republicans hope to "fix" that by allowing the legislature to simply overturn the election if voter "vote wrong."

[AgnosticBoy]

I showed you repeatedly that people cheating are getting caught. There just aren't very many of them trying it.

No, I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that voter fraud is very rare. You're arguing that because there's so little evidence for cheating, there must be many cheaters. Not a very good argument, I think.

Even if voter fraud is rare, that doesn't mean we don't put security in place. I mean you're even arguing against voter ID laws, which is very basic form of security to prevent voter impersonation. Eventhough, some or even many Republicans may think that voter ID laws gives them a strategic advantage (less voter turn out for among the poorer groups), but there is also a security reason, as well. It's possible for an act to serve two functions. It's only biased to say that it serves one.

[AgnosticBoy]

Evidence which there can never be, because the evidence you want is evidence of people getting away with it - in other words, catching the ones we didn't catch. If we had ever only tested one bodybuilder a year, there would be an equal lack of numbers of confirmed cheaters and a total lack of evidence that enough people were cheating to do anything more. We have evidence that bodybuilders and professional athletes are a cesspool of steroid use precisely because it's natural for oversight to overreach. How much cheating do we think there might be? Check 'em all. And check the ones we only slightly suspect too.

I think it's worse than what you're arguing. Not only do we have some Democrats arguing as if there has to be successful cases of cheating to get security, but they're in favor of laws (voter ID) that would make it harder to catch cheating.

So they're complaining that there's not any real cheating going on, while trying to take away the tools (security and oversight) that would catch cheating in the first place. That logic doesn't work. If anything, security is supposed to be proactive to prevent cheating, and not just reactive to catch cheating after the fact.

[The Barbarian]

I showed you repeatedly that people cheating are getting caught. There just aren't very many of them trying it.
I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that voter fraud is very rare. You're arguing that because there's so little evidence for cheating, there must be many cheaters. Not a very good argument, I think.

Even if voter fraud is rare, that doesn't mean we don't put security in place.

The security in place is how we caught the very few people who actually did illegally vote, or try to.

I mean you're even arguing against voter ID laws,

I'm arguing against laws which are designed to disenfranchise legal voters. If they want to have a universal adult citizen registry, with a card given to every person, requiring no time off for work or additional fees to get, fine. But that won't happen, because it defeats the whole purpose of republicans for requiring cards.

Eventhough, some or even many Republicans may think that voter ID laws gives them a strategic advantage (less voter turn out for among the poorer groups), but there is also a security reason, as well. It's possible for an act to serve two functions.

If it tends to disenfranchise legal voters, it's wrong and generally illegal, regardless of other purposes.