Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 58
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Okay whatever. If you care about our Democratic process and the integrity of our elections, or the perception of integrity, then...
    I do indeed. The gravest threats this century to our Democratic process and the integrity of our elections has come from MAGA efforts to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election. That's why I push back so hard on that bullshit.

    Consonant with that has been efforts by state-level Republicans to replace election workers and Secretaries of State with zealots who will toe the MAGA line next time around.

    Probably the second-gravest tier of threats to Democratic process and election integrity has been the systematic efforts by Republican state legislatures to disenfranchise groups of voters they think aren't with them (often black people). Most blatantly in states like North Carolina, but many other states too.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    you should at least want there to be things like voter ID and/or a biometric requirements etc..
    Right. Maybe we could bring back a Poll Tax and grandfather clauses too.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Ideally our process should make it easy to vote but impossible to cheat and be 100% transparent. It's tricky. I think the only way you could ever eliminate fraud is to make people, all but the very sick and those overseas like military, go someplace and vote in person. Kind of like it's always been.
    You don't think covid merited an expansion of absentee balloting? Like for the elderly?
    Or the merely medium-sick, in a pandemic?

    This page has a graph showing what looks like a big blip up for mail voting that is likely due to covid policies, and a tick down right after:
    (along with a general rising trend)

    I've seen some studies that say absentee balloting is more secure than in-person balloting. I'm not deeply versed in the issue myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    But Democrats, and their fun common bullshit tactic, is to claim those things that would actually increase integrity of our elections, or at least improve peoples confidence in them, "disenfranchise" people.
    Tell me you don't know any civil rights history, without actually saying you don't know any civil rights history.

    The documented history is that such things have been used in the past to disenfranchise groups of voters. And don't use scare-quotes on that: they have been used to prevent certain groups of legal voters from voting. Within most of our lifetimes, too. There's good reason that stuff was deemed unconstitutional.

    If you want to say things will be different this time – well, maybe.

    Biometrics are "new"; not in the scale of the IT industry, but in the scale of US voting mechanisms. There are a zillion voting districts in this country. Funding, technological acceptance, suspicion of anything "newfangled" – hell, people distrust the fucking census. You think they're gonna want to give up their biometrics to the government?

    I'm not talking about Libs or Dems, either. Plenty of Republicans and Libertarians distrust the census and governmental intrusion etc to the point where I'm skeptical they'd want to entrust their biometrics to govt-maintained voter rolls.

    Maybe such a thing is doable. But it certainly won't happen quick.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    2020 and 2022, particularly 2022 were complete bullshit. In 40 years of watching the dynamic of generals and mid-terms there is no way an unpopular guy like Biden avoids the fate of Obama, Regan, Clinton etc.. There is no way unless our system is completely broken.
    This comment is – well, difficult to parse.

    The "fates" of Obama, Reagan, Clinton is that they were all two-term presidents, having won the general election twice. Did Biden want to "avoid" that "fate"? I don't think so. And so far, if he did want to avoid it, he hasn't.

    "An unpopular guy like Biden"? Trump was literally the most unpopular president in the history of opinion polls. That's not even an exaggeration. Tracked from week one of his presidency thru the end, he was it.

    Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. I don't see any shock in him losing it again in 2020.
    He got similar percent both times:

    Year Turnout Trump% Opponent%
    2016 60.1% 46.1% 48.2%
    2020 66.6% 46.8% 51.3%

    We see seasoned affable politician Biden turning out more Democratic voters than the deeply shitty politician and divisive figure Hillary. We also see Dems returning from 3rd-party candidates like Jill Stein between 2016 and 2020. None of that seems surprising.

    Probably the two impeachments also had a role in turning out Dems.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    If you can't meet me half way on the Voter ID thing then your opinion doesn't really matter to me.
    If you can't meet me halfway that:

    • Widespread voter fraud is a Republican myth;
    The bad old days of Mayor Daley's Chicago Machine were more than half a century ago. Most of the voter fraud that has been discovered and documented over the last ~30 years has been attempted by Republicans (truth!);

    • Republicans perpetuate the myth to justify more voter suppression in Democratic districts;

    • Judges took a fair look at the allegations around the 2020 election, and correctly found that the lawsuits around them were were partisan-driven bullshit without factual or legal merit;

    • the January 6 riots were an insurrection and a Banana Republic -style attempt to overturn the results of the free and fair election;

    then your opinion doesn't really matter to me.
    Last edited by JimZipCode; 04-11-2024 at 09:16 PM.





  2. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    You are kind of a pompous opinionated guy
    I prefer "arrogant and didactic".

    "Pompous" is such a particular tone. I work hard to avoid it: colloquial language, punchy sentences, emojis, breaking up blocks of text with whitespace, tables where possible, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    My post to Shade was to try to force him to address the OP's claim which he didn't.
    But I did.

    OP's claim was – well, as I understand it & responded to it, OP's claim was that there is widespread evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election, and it's been swept under the rug by – um, I guess boards of elections and secretaries of state; and further, that judges were complicit. Purposely dismissing cases on technicality to keep THE TRUTH buried.

    It's an evidence-free claim; an article of faith, like in a religion. Trying to counter it with evidence is, by definition, ineffective. But I feel there's a duty to bring it anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    Trump is a wildly polarizing person so I could buy an 80 year old guy with cognitive decline and that campaigned out of his basement beating him in 2020 as a protest vote.
    Sure. A golden retriever could have beat Trump in 2020.

    Not a woman; and certainly not a woman whose public image has been smeared by Republicans since the 1990s like Hillary's has. But an affable white male senator with a straight-talking image and a long track record of winning elections; sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    2022 though, the lack of a wave, that doesn't compute. Trump wasn't on the ballot.
    Trump-ism was, though. Plenty of Republican candidates were election-deniers.

    The Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade also broke that summer. An anti-Republican backlash was highly predictable just off of that. Every poll that I've seen shows most Americans support abortion rights, so that's a mini-wave right there.





    By the way – this has nothing to do with 2022, but does bear on 2024:

    I think you (along with Trumpists in general) are pushing too hard on the "cognitive decline" thing. I see some evidence of cognitive decline in Biden: hesitation in word-finding etc. But not too bad; he seems there.

    Trump will be older this election day than Biden was last time (just 3ฝ years age difference between them, about 4%). And Trump to me seems WAY worse in cognitive decline than Biden did then or does now. Utter incoherence when he speaks. He seems unable to keep a straight line in his thought & speech, and unable to notice when he rambles and deviates. Nursing of grievances. Poor impulse control – actually, complete lack of impuse control. Frequent rage, that reminds me of Alzheimers-driven rage. He doesn't seem "there" to me.

    Did I say that clearly? I do see some evidence of age-related decline in Biden. I'm not blind to it. (We might disagree on how much). Between the two of them, in terms of age-related decline, I worry that:

    • Biden might stutter in a public speech, and need some help getting on & off Air Force 1 and Marine 1.
    • Trump is insane.

    Trump doesn't win an age-related decline contest with Biden, to me. I think the more he is seen in a general election context, the more dismayingly obvious it'll be to everyone.

    We'll see how that goes.





  3. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,493
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    The greatest threat this century to our democratic process is weaponization of the judicial system





  4. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post

    BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS REGULAR MEETING – NOVEMBER 13, 2020
    https://www.fultoncountyga.gov/-/med...-11132020.ashx[/INDENT]

    (The all-caps on "FOR THE RECORD" is in the original; also the ellipses above, dunno why.)


    This is funny:

    At that November board meeting, they had to vote to certify the results of ALL the elections on the ballot, not just the presidential race. The vote to certify the presidential results, was 3-2, with the two Republicans (Wingate and Dr Kathleen Ruth) voting nay. But they then had to vote to certify each of other items on the ballot.

    I copy/pasted from the embedded PDF to get this list, might have missed one or two:

    • Unexpired Term of Johnny Isakson, US Senate
    • Special Democratic Primary Election
    • Proposed Constitutional Amendments: House Resolution 164 Act No. 597
    • Proposed Constitutional Amendments: House Resolution 1023 Act No. 596
    • Statewide Referendum: House Bill 344 Act No. 149
    • Special Election for the City of Union City: Referendum for Homestead Exemption
    • Special Election for the City of East Point: Referendum on Whether to Allow Sunday Alcohol Sales
    • Special Election for the City of Atlanta: Referendum for Homestead Exemption

    The board certified each and every one of these by vote of 5-0. Wingate & Ruth voted aye with the rest of the board. Whatever the problem with signature-matching, it only affected the presidential election? Ha, right. Someone skeptical of Wingate's motives might wonder about that vote. But I'm sure you'll tell me there's nothing to see here.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Further up the post than you're probably looking.

    Search the post for the bolded heading "BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS REGULAR MEETING"
    The line under it has a link to the fultoncountyga dot gov domain, that ends with ".ashx"
    Jim I read all 11 pages and not one word of the down ballot 5-0 counts. Buuuttttt with a little research it finds out you are correct.

    See the whole thing there is 147k mail in votes that are in question amirite??

    House Resolution 164 Act# 597
    Results

    Passed 3.8 mil to 860k

    House Resolution 1023 Act# 596
    Results

    Passed 3.5 mil to 1.2 mil

    House Bill 344 Act# 149
    Results

    Passed 3.4 mil to 1.3 mil

    Trump lost by almost 12k votes. These results show a 2 mil difference.

    So Jim Zippy looks like your resources lied in your face again. Either that or you are extremely misleading to the casual observer. Ha!!!
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  5. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    I do indeed. The gravest threats this century to our Democratic process and the integrity of our elections has come from MAGA efforts to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election. That's why I push back so hard on that bullshit.

    Consonant with that has been efforts by state-level Republicans to replace election workers and Secretaries of State with zealots who will toe the MAGA line next time around.

    Probably the second-gravest tier of threats to Democratic process and election integrity has been the systematic efforts by Republican state legislatures to disenfranchise groups of voters they think aren't with them (often black people). Most blatantly in states like North Carolina, but many other states too.


    Right. Maybe we could bring back a Poll Tax and grandfather clauses too.


    You don't think covid merited an expansion of absentee balloting? Like for the elderly?
    Or the merely medium-sick, in a pandemic?

    This page has a graph showing what looks like a big blip up for mail voting that is likely due to covid policies, and a tick down right after:
    (along with a general rising trend)

    I've seen some studies that say absentee balloting is more secure than in-person balloting. I'm not deeply versed in the issue myself.


    Tell me you don't know any civil rights history, without actually saying you don't know any civil rights history.

    The documented history is that such things have been used in the past to disenfranchise groups of voters. And don't use scare-quotes on that: they have been used to prevent certain groups of legal voters from voting. Within most of our lifetimes, too. There's good reason that stuff was deemed unconstitutional.

    If you want to say things will be different this time – well, maybe.

    Biometrics are "new"; not in the scale of the IT industry, but in the scale of US voting mechanisms. There are a zillion voting districts in this country. Funding, technological acceptance, suspicion of anything "newfangled" – hell, people distrust the fucking census. You think they're gonna want to give up their biometrics to the government?

    I'm not talking about Libs or Dems, either. Plenty of Republicans and Libertarians distrust the census and governmental intrusion etc to the point where I'm skeptical they'd want to entrust their biometrics to govt-maintained voter rolls.

    Maybe such a thing is doable. But it certainly won't happen quick.


    This comment is – well, difficult to parse.

    The "fates" of Obama, Reagan, Clinton is that they were all two-term presidents, having won the general election twice. Did Biden want to "avoid" that "fate"? I don't think so. And so far, if he did want to avoid it, he hasn't.

    "An unpopular guy like Biden"? Trump was literally the most unpopular president in the history of opinion polls. That's not even an exaggeration. Tracked from week one of his presidency thru the end, he was it.

    Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. I don't see any shock in him losing it again in 2020.
    He got similar percent both times:

    Year Turnout Trump% Opponent%
    2016 60.1% 46.1% 48.2%
    2020 66.6% 46.8% 51.3%

    We see seasoned affable politician Biden turning out more Democratic voters than the deeply shitty politician and divisive figure Hillary. We also see Dems returning from 3rd-party candidates like Jill Stein between 2016 and 2020. None of that seems surprising.

    Probably the two impeachments also had a role in turning out Dems.


    If you can't meet me halfway that:

    • Widespread voter fraud is a Republican myth;
    The bad old days of Mayor Daley's Chicago Machine were more than half a century ago. Most of the voter fraud that has been discovered and documented over the last ~30 years has been attempted by Republicans (truth!);

    • Republicans perpetuate the myth to justify more voter suppression in Democratic districts;

    • Judges took a fair look at the allegations around the 2020 election, and correctly found that the lawsuits around them were were partisan-driven bullshit without factual or legal merit;

    • the January 6 riots were an insurrection and a Banana Republic -style attempt to overturn the results of the free and fair election;

    then your opinion doesn't really matter to me.
    Jim you keep saying disenfranchizing but yet show no examples. Why is that? Why not just use the Jim Crow Ga Law and explain how it disenfranchizes. Left wingers keep parroting it so that should be easy.

    Do you believe in 3rd party drop off boxes? Widespread ballots being sent out without request? You know just for convenience.

    As for Jan 6th. Charge somebody with insurrection. I mean why not clear cut cases. Right?
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  6. #30

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    I do indeed. The gravest threats this century to our Democratic process and the integrity of our elections has come from MAGA efforts to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election. That's why I push back so hard on that bullshit.

    Consonant with that has been efforts by state-level Republicans to replace election workers and Secretaries of State with zealots who will toe the MAGA line next time around.

    Probably the second-gravest tier of threats to Democratic process and election integrity has been the systematic efforts by Republican state legislatures to disenfranchise groups of voters they think aren't with them (often black people). Most blatantly in states like North Carolina, but many other states too.


    Right. Maybe we could bring back a Poll Tax and grandfather clauses too.


    You don't think covid merited an expansion of absentee balloting? Like for the elderly?
    Or the merely medium-sick, in a pandemic?

    This page has a graph showing what looks like a big blip up for mail voting that is likely due to covid policies, and a tick down right after:
    (along with a general rising trend)

    I've seen some studies that say absentee balloting is more secure than in-person balloting. I'm not deeply versed in the issue myself.


    Tell me you don't know any civil rights history, without actually saying you don't know any civil rights history.

    The documented history is that such things have been used in the past to disenfranchise groups of voters. And don't use scare-quotes on that: they have been used to prevent certain groups of legal voters from voting. Within most of our lifetimes, too. There's good reason that stuff was deemed unconstitutional.

    If you want to say things will be different this time – well, maybe.

    Biometrics are "new"; not in the scale of the IT industry, but in the scale of US voting mechanisms. There are a zillion voting districts in this country. Funding, technological acceptance, suspicion of anything "newfangled" – hell, people distrust the fucking census. You think they're gonna want to give up their biometrics to the government?

    I'm not talking about Libs or Dems, either. Plenty of Republicans and Libertarians distrust the census and governmental intrusion etc to the point where I'm skeptical they'd want to entrust their biometrics to govt-maintained voter rolls.

    Maybe such a thing is doable. But it certainly won't happen quick.


    This comment is – well, difficult to parse.

    The "fates" of Obama, Reagan, Clinton is that they were all two-term presidents, having won the general election twice. Did Biden want to "avoid" that "fate"? I don't think so. And so far, if he did want to avoid it, he hasn't.

    "An unpopular guy like Biden"? Trump was literally the most unpopular president in the history of opinion polls. That's not even an exaggeration. Tracked from week one of his presidency thru the end, he was it.

    Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. I don't see any shock in him losing it again in 2020.
    He got similar percent both times:

    Year Turnout Trump% Opponent%
    2016 60.1% 46.1% 48.2%
    2020 66.6% 46.8% 51.3%

    We see seasoned affable politician Biden turning out more Democratic voters than the deeply shitty politician and divisive figure Hillary. We also see Dems returning from 3rd-party candidates like Jill Stein between 2016 and 2020. None of that seems surprising.

    Probably the two impeachments also had a role in turning out Dems.


    If you can't meet me halfway that:

    • Widespread voter fraud is a Republican myth;
    The bad old days of Mayor Daley's Chicago Machine were more than half a century ago. Most of the voter fraud that has been discovered and documented over the last ~30 years has been attempted by Republicans (truth!);

    • Republicans perpetuate the myth to justify more voter suppression in Democratic districts;

    • Judges took a fair look at the allegations around the 2020 election, and correctly found that the lawsuits around them were were partisan-driven bullshit without factual or legal merit;

    • the January 6 riots were an insurrection and a Banana Republic -style attempt to overturn the results of the free and fair election;

    then your opinion doesn't really matter to me.
    You have completely overwhelmed my ADHD brain with this. Uncle.





  7. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    You have completely overwhelmed my ADHD brain with this. Uncle.
    Thing is Bust he writes a lot of shit that means nothing. Throws a bunch of insinuations out there with no examples. He should explain how people are dienfranchized with early voting allowed which is plenty of time enough. being able to request a mail in ballot ( Md sends you a notice if you need one. Just fill it out and return ) or getting a very affordable ID which in the Jim Crow state of Ga is free. Can Americans get off their ass and do something?
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  8. #32

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    Thing is Bust he writes a lot of shit that means nothing. Throws a bunch of insinuations out there with no examples. He should explain how people are dienfranchized with early voting allowed which is plenty of time enough. being able to request a mail in ballot ( Md sends you a notice if you need one. Just fill it out and return ) or getting a very affordable ID which in the Jim Crow state of Ga is free. Can Americans get off their ass and do something?
    I'm at pickles on beer 7. I owed him a reply. I cant read all that and am not in the mood for verbal sparring. Life is good.





  9. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    I'm at pickles on beer 7. I owed him a reply. I cant read all that and am not in the mood for verbal sparring. Life is good.
    Never post while drinking lol. Drank about 6 Shiner Bock's last night so I waited till today.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  10. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    Jim I read all 11 pages and not one word of the down ballot 5-0 counts.
    Am I reading it wrong? Here's a couple screenshots showing parts of pages 7 & 8:


    7 to 8:




    more of 8:



    I understood the smaller-font entries that are bulleted & indented to be items on the ballot.
    And I took the circled "5-0" in the bold font to be the results of the board's vote to certify.
    Is that incorrect?


    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    So Jim Zippy looks like your resources lied in your face again. Either that or you are extremely misleading to the casual observer. Ha!!!
    Okay.


    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    See the whole thing there is 147k mail in votes that are in question amirite??

    House Resolution 164 Act# 597
    Results

    Passed 3.8 mil to 860k

    House Resolution 1023 Act# 596
    Results

    Passed 3.5 mil to 1.2 mil

    House Bill 344 Act# 149
    Results

    Passed 3.4 mil to 1.3 mil

    Trump lost by almost 12k votes. These results show a 2 mil difference.
    Not sure what you're referencing here? You'll need to slow down for the dumb liberal to follow.

    Trump lost the statewide by just under 12k. Razor-thin margin, like 0.2%. Absolutely justified recounts.

    Approx 5 million votes cast, representing about 70% of the active registered voters. The results you show for the bills & resolutions seem consistent with ~5m votes. So I'm not sure what the 2mil difference is that you mention?





  11. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    Jim you keep saying disenfranchizing but yet show no examples. Why is that?
    Because this is a thread about the 2020 election lie.
    Can't talk about everything at once.





  12. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by BustOfPallas View Post
    You have completely overwhelmed my ADHD brain with this. Uncle.

    Sorry.


    TL,DR:

    • Said that most of my concern about the integrity of our elections is directed at Republican efforts to undermine.

    • Posited that expansion of absentee balloting in 2020 was probably justified by pandemic.

    • Linked a graph that showed absentee balloting ticking back down some in 2022, after the 2020 peak.

    • Likened voter ID laws to the Poll Tax and other Jim Crow era stuff that was ruled unconstitional.

    • Opined that biometrics on govt-maintained voter roles might be opposed by Republicans & Libertarians who already distrust the govt (for ex the census), along with minority populations who also distrust.
    So definitely not happening quickly.

    • Listed some reason why I thought 2020 results made sense:
    — Biden a better politician than Hillary (astronomically so), better able to turn out his base;
    — Jill Stein voters and others returning to the Dem column;
    — Trump the most consistently unpopular president in the history of opinion polling;
    — Probably the two impeachments also having an impact on the electorate.

    • Finished up with some huffy "Well your opinion doesn't matter to ME, either!" snark.



    That should be easier to read/absorb.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->