Instances of voting interference or fraud

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Statistics is a big part of epidemiology, so I have used both at times in my field, although neither is my day job anymore. However, it's not so much that I am an expert in either, more that I do know BS when I smell it. 

 

  They are not going to find any evidence of election fraud. The GOP has imagined that and used it as an excuse for so long that they can't work through a scenario without bringing fraud into it. It's time to move on. Move on by choice now, or wait a few years and be forced. Demographics are changing, and the GOP will have to change too if they want to stay relevant. They know that. They talked about that a lot prior to 2016, and then for some reason they decided to double down with Trump and milk the old system for a few more years. They are going to run out of ways to exclude people. They need to start focusing on inclusion. For their own good, and for everyone.

I think there will be some pockets of voter hanky panky and election workers counting stuff they should not, but not enough to be systematic or change anything 

[Dashinka 24,957]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I think there will be some pockets of voter hanky panky and election workers counting stuff they should not, but not enough to be systematic or change anything 

It only had to happen in three key areas, Milwaukee, Philly and Detroit.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

Democrats need to do the same. there are so many people that agree with their economic policies, but disagree on things like capital punishment, gun ownership, abortion, climate change etc that they need to do a better job of finding a position and message that resonates rather than allow themselves to be painted as something. I am an example of that

 

people now are very nuanced in beliefs that pigeonholing them into one tribe or another really doesnt work. this is why i think less people will identify in parties in the future in favor of being independent

i think we really have several different parties

pure socialists

progressives

centrist democrats

centrist republicans

tea party

libertarian

trumpists

green

nazis/white supremacists/fascists

 

The Republican "everything is far left" is a clear strategy aimed at getting more people to support their party. I'll go more into this after the next paragraph.

 

The Democrat staging of virtually everything they do (impeachment hearings, Nancy's little paper tearing exercise, way too many to cite) is clear strategy aimed at repeated short bursts of "optics" because they know their demographic relies on a constant slow drip of confirmation bias, so effectively need their drug-like fix even if it's clearly staged or fake.

 

So we know the Democrats and the far left, Antifa, BLM, and co, who've been destroying national monuments and torching/looting/spreading this chaos across the country, have been working in tandem against Trump, but it's primarily a relationship of temporary convenience. Antifa/BLM want their own power, and that establishment wants it too. Neither like Trump, so they work together. No establishment likes a movement it can't control, which includes the communistic "squad", which is why Nancy is going to do everything she can do to retain Speaker position. The party establishment exists to infiltrate and absorb every grassroots movement back into their umbrella, and AOC knows better which is why she's being patient. Think tea party, occupy, etc. Dems know they won't control the anarcho-communists on the ground, so they, their media buddies, and people in the bureaus, help with financing and support of them to punish Americans for electing Trump. Their hope is you see weak people capitulate and support them, ironically, out of "fear" of repercussions. Social media companies help facilitate this guy gaslighting about extreme right wing movements while banning conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones or "Qanon", meanwhile letting their platforms operate as a propaganda wing and promoting agent of that extreme left. 

 

Between the two parties you have:

Democrats:

Populists

Leftists/Marxists

Neoliberals

 

Republicans:

Populists

Right wingers

Neoconservatives

 

Then various independents (i.e. me).

 

I didn't mention moderates because moderates are in those groups, but there's overlap. Populists can easily move between the two parties, you saw this with Bernie supporters supporting Trump instead of Hillary/Biden. Saw it with prior Trump supporters supporting Bernie or Tulsi. Also neoconservatives and neoliberals overlap. Difference is, there's a lot more neoliberals. The neoconservatives left are almost exclusively those holdovers from Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 admins, as well as long time members of Congress, especially the Senate. Most of the neoconservatives in the populace have largely turned into neoliberals, primarily because populism has taken over the Republican party, the manifestation of that being Trump (though far less intelligent people think it's all "Trump" rather than Trump being the result of populism). 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Prizm123 said:

Democrats need to do the same. there are so many people that agree with their economic policies, but disagree on things like capital punishment, gun ownership, abortion, climate change etc that they need to do a better job of finding a position and message that resonates rather than allow themselves to be painted as something. I am an example of that

 

people now are very nuanced in beliefs that pigeonholing them into one tribe or another really doesnt work. this is why i think less people will identify in parties in the future in favor of being independent

i think we really have several different parties

pure socialists

progressives

centrist democrats

centrist republicans

tea party

libertarian

trumpists

green

nazis/white supremacists/fascists

 

 

   I've said a few times that the Democrats had to move past whining about 2016 and focus on what they did wrong. As always, there are no excuses that matter. Democrats had to focus on fixing themselves, not on fixing Trump. Unfortunately they didn't do much really. Biden/Harris had broad support in the party to get a decent turnout, and Trump alienated enough independents and Republicans to push the Dems over the top. That's the only reason the Democrats won. The evidence is right there in the loss of house seats and failure to pick up senate seats. People aren't real happy with either party. The Trump factor was big, but it won't be there next time around. 

 

  Biden talked about healing and coming together. That means there isn't going to be the liberal agenda that many expect. You can't have it both ways. There are going to be some compromises. You have to walk the walk to make things work. IMO, the party in power has to take the first step. Trump never did that, but that is part of why Trump is gone. For the liberals, no more whining about how unfair something was. No talk about packing the court or getting even for all of Trumps BS. They need to move past that. If you want to change something, bring the other side to the table and figure out how. If you shut the other side out, nothing will get done. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Dashinka 24,957]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I've said a few times that the Democrats had to move past whining about 2016 and focus on what they did wrong. As always, there are no excuses that matter. Democrats had to focus on fixing themselves, not on fixing Trump. Unfortunately they didn't do much really. Biden/Harris had broad support in the party to get a decent turnout, and Trump alienated enough independents and Republicans to push the Dems over the top. That's the only reason the Democrats won. The evidence is right there in the loss of house seats and failure to pick up senate seats. People aren't real happy with either party. The Trump factor was big, but it won't be there next time around. 

 

  Biden talked about healing and coming together. That means there isn't going to be the liberal agenda that many expect. You can't have it both ways. There are going to be some compromises. You have to walk the walk to make things work. IMO, the party in power has to take the first step. Trump never did that, but that is part of why Trump is gone. For the liberals, no more whining about how unfair something was. No talk about packing the court or getting even for all of Trumps BS. They need to move past that. If you want to change something, bring the other side to the table and figure out how. If you shut the other side out, nothing will get done. 

We will see if Biden sticks to his words.  The Senate in Democrat hands is a very real possibility come January, and if Nancy and Chuck send a Bill up to Joe for a GND, or adding Justices I don’t see Joe vetoing it, but time will tell.  If the Dems can get the Senate, they can do a lot of damage in two years.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

We will see if Biden sticks to his words.  The Senate in Democrat hands is a very real possibility come January, and if Nancy and Chuck send a Bill up to Joe for a GND, or adding Justices I don’t see Joe vetoing it, but time will tell.  If the Dems can get the Senate, they can do a lot of damage in two years.

 

   Having the presidency and both chambers is going to be very significant, especially for something like the SC going forward. Given the 6:3 split in favor of the GOP right now, I don't think there should be any expectation of a compromise there. If the Republicans have the senate, Biden will have to choose a moderate. If the Dems have the senate, he would pick a liberal justice.

 

   I don't think it's good for the country to have a political bias on the court. I think if you get to 5:4, you should be looking more moderate candidates if you get the next nomination. The 6:3 split has created several issues, mostly because of the way it happened with Garland. I've moved on already. Liberals played a role in allowing Trump to get elected, and the SC will remind us for a while that there are consequences for our actions. I think we move forward with that in mind.  I think many liberals want to push back for all of that, but that will also lead to consequences down the road. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I think there will be some pockets of voter hanky panky and election workers counting stuff they should not, but not enough to be systematic or change anything 

Except systematic doesn't mean statewide, that's called comprehensive. Systematic means routine, as in, a system put in place designed for a specific outcome. The case for systematic election fraud by barring observers has over 100 witnesses now, and dozens of them have already appeared for sworn depositions. Others, from their statements, say they're scared for repercussions (a third world environment the left and media created where political dissent destroys people, massive destruction to free speech and expression) so won't go public. 

 

I think I saw someone quote Steel saying he doesn't put up signs for supporting candidates, which is his prerogative, but I notice he doesn't even bother thinking/worrying about what kind of environment it is where people are too afraid of openly expressing their support for candidates for fear of political violence, also known as terrorism.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

It only had to happen in three key areas, Milwaukee, Philly and Detroit.

 

  So there are two alternatives. The first is that Joe Biden got 40000 more votes in an extremely liberal city in his home state. The second is that there are 40000 fake votes for Joe in Philly. Seriously, the Kool Aid is free, but we don't have to drink it. Occam's razor would dictate the simple answer here. I'm really not sure why anyone thinks Trump would be winning these states in the first place, let alone why it would take fake votes for him to lose. 

[Dashinka 24,957]

37 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Having the presidency and both chambers is going to be very significant, especially for something like the SC going forward. Given the 6:3 split in favor of the GOP right now, I don't think there should be any expectation of a compromise there. If the Republicans have the senate, Biden will have to choose a moderate. If the Dems have the senate, he would pick a liberal justice.

 

   I don't think it's good for the country to have a political bias on the court. I think if you get to 5:4, you should be looking more moderate candidates if you get the next nomination. The 6:3 split has created several issues, mostly because of the way it happened with Garland. I've moved on already. Liberals played a role in allowing Trump to get elected, and the SC will remind us for a while that there are consequences for our actions. I think we move forward with that in mind.  I think many liberals want to push back for all of that, but that will also lead to consequences down the road. 

I don’t really see a 6-3 split right now other than in what Party’s President appointed them.  Roberts and even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have proven quite or somewhat moderate and we have no idea about Coney-Barrett yet.  The Left wants justices like Kagan, Sotomayor and the late RBG who are positive Leftist.

[Dashinka 24,957]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  So there are two alternatives. The first is that Joe Biden got 40000 more votes in an extremely liberal city in his home state. The second is that there are 40000 fake votes for Joe in Philly. Seriously, the Kool Aid is free, but we don't have to drink it. Occam's razor would dictate the simple answer here. I'm really not sure why anyone thinks Trump would be winning these states in the first place, let alone why it would take fake votes for him to lose. 

Just using the tactics of the Left, we all know Trump only won in 2016 because of Russian collusion.  Aside from that, if our election processes become more transparent to the public it would be a good thing.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

I don’t really see a 6-3 split right now other than in what Party’s President appointed them.  Roberts and even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have proven quite or somewhat moderate and we have no idea about Coney-Barrett yet.  The Left wants justices like Kagan, Sotomayor and the late RBG who are positive Leftist.

 

   Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are not moderate in any sense of the word. Not even somewhat.

 

   Roberts is moderate mainly in the sense that he is trying his best to keep politics out of the SC. If the court was liberal, Roberts history suggests he would vote conservative, but I think he has put a higher priority on keeping the court bipartisan, even if it means voting against his record. I don't think it's a given that he will vote with the liberal justices, but I think he will if the vote is politically influenced.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

They are moderate in that their views jump between the parties. The group both of them would belong to are called neoconservatives. Just look to the group Trump recruited them from. Neoconservative up and down TFS. This is why its perplexing to me that conservative Republicans believe these people will uphold conservative values. The biggest tests of that which separates conventional conservatives from neoconservatives? Foreign policy, government bureaus/surveillance, and immigration. More recently, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Neocons are a lot more relativistic on the "principles" part.

 

Neoconservatives on the court are unequivocally Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. 

 

I've yet to really see what Barrett is, but I suspect likely a neoconservative as well. It'll likely either be that or among Alito/Thomas.

 

The very conservative "right wingers" are Alito and Thomas. 

 

The one neoliberal I'd say is Breyer. Leftists being Sotomayor and Kagan.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Prizm123 1,086]

personally i dont think SCOTUS is going to be as big an issue as a lot of people are panicking about

 

congress can grant exceptions to jurisdiction as long as it does not interfere with Original Jurisdiction

 

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. United States Constitution Article III, § cl. 2

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

personally i dont think SCOTUS is going to be as big an issue as a lot of people are panicking about

 

congress can grant exceptions to jurisdiction as long as it does not interfere with Original Jurisdiction

 

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. United States Constitution Article III, § cl. 2

 

 

I don't think so either. These people have been overwhelmed by the spectacle of confirmation hearings, these can have a huge effect on cognitive dissonance. As such, I think they're probably scared as hell to make any significant but necessary ruling re: the election. The obvious exceptions being Alito and Thomas.

 

Also, on the end there, if you're talking about SCOTUS' ability to reverse the state supreme court ruling, they most definitely can, and this has a fair chance of happening. The Constitution is quite clear about the legislative branch's sole power on election laws in the states. The courts there not only changed laws, which is one unconstitutional act, but they did it right before an election creating unnecessary chaos, which is a serious harm to the election itself when its not them that makes the law. Overall, it's very bad for PA. The leadership there from the governor and those right under him to the state judges committed grave offenses against the United States Republic as elections are one of the most sacred institutions, and they made a joke of it.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nitas_man 3,100]

If the left will stay out of energy and let the market do what it’s doing (it’s nicely moving towards renewables) and will stay out of gun cabinets and the right will stay out of people’s bedrooms that would be a good start

Edited November 8, 2020 by Nitas_man