The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Fraud Mailer
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This doesn’t bode well for public trust in our electoral institutions on November 4th, 2020:

Though results are not broken down by both race and political orientation in the survey results, we can deduce from the relatively low levels of black trust that white Democrat trust is quite high. The secretary of state in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, and in Michigan are all Democrats. General election polling shows Biden leading in all of three states and the betting markets expect Biden to win them all. There are better insurance policies against an unwanted president than blatant FBI corruption, three messy years of bear baiting and an absurdly fabricated set of impeachment charges.

Is it too much to ask for voters to receive a password tied to their social security numbers to verify their ballot selections have been accurately recorded subsequent to submitting their votes? Raj Chetty can get personal income tax information for research purposes, so perhaps others could be granted similar access to election results to verify their integrity.

Unfortunately, the powers that be view the electoral black box as a feature rather than a bug.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Polling, Trust 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It was a nice country while it lasted.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    It was a nice country while it lasted.
     
    Voting fraud has been a huge part of this "nice country" from the very beginning. It's well known that Kennedy probably stole Texas and Illinois via fraud from Nixon in 1960. And gilded-age political machines like Tammany Hall were more overtly corrupt than even today's Democrats. Our culture has degraded over time, but our political system has not: it was always this bad.

    Fraud, just like voter importation, is a perfectly logical consequence of democracy.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    51-star flag?
    , @Almost Missouri
    Some of us reached this conclusion 12 years ago.

    https://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2008/11/04/7699/

    In my memory, Kathy Shaidle's post was originally accompanied by the classic Peggy Joseph clip:

    https://youtu.be/Bg98BvqUvCc

    and words to the effect of America had a choice of self-reliance and Sarah Palin or Peggy Joseph and someone's gonna pay my bills. America chose Peggy Joseph.

    America: it was nice while it lasted.
  2. No, asking for social security numbers would be racist. It is sufficient for untrained clerks to verify signatures on the back of envelopes. That is all.

  3. You gonna land in jail one day. Simple solutions are not allowed. Go read Protocol 2/2, 5/4, 9/10, particularly 13/4 and 16/7. Five paragraphs that encapsulate everything you need to know about the things you are not to know.
    But I do believe the end of your article addresses the main issue: Why can they use my phone data as evidence against me in a trial, but not to prove my ballot? Because those who run the trials also run the ballot, and they know not to paint themselves into a corner? “Democratic power lies not with him who casts the vote, but him who counts it.”

  4. The best hope to survive this cycle is for Trump to win beyond the DNC’s ability to commit ballot fraud. This could happen as his popularity keeps increasing and enthusiasm for Biden is virtually non-existant.

    This would allow 4 years to work on strengthening U.S. voting integrity:

    — Strong Voter ID
    — Proof of Citizenship
    — Mail Voting “only based on need”
    — Ballot Harvesting Ban
    ___

    The worst case for this cycle is Biden declaring a victory based on fraud. If the GOP can demonstrate ballot issues greater than the margin of victory in a state, the courts would block the losing DNC candidate. However, Trump Derangement Syndrome is so virulent among Democrats they may attempt to end the the nation rather than concede defeat.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you in general, A123, but what would 4 more years do, when the last 4 years have been shot to hell? 4 more years of arguing with the very people you hired, twitting up a storm, getting distracted from your non-existent long-term strategy, and just bullshitting in general? What's the point?

    I wanted to agree with Buzz Mohawk but ran out this morning. It was good while it lasted. It's probably time to make a new plan, Stan.
  5. Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    By all means we should trust the banks for such an essential function. They certainly have no conflicts of interest....
    , @botazefa

    Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.
     
    ... is a great example of a supremely stupid idea.
    , @Dumbo
    Yes, because there's no corruption in the banking industry, LOL.
    Don't bankers decide already who gets elected, anyway?
  6. @A123
    The best hope to survive this cycle is for Trump to win beyond the DNC's ability to commit ballot fraud. This could happen as his popularity keeps increasing and enthusiasm for Biden is virtually non-existant.

    This would allow 4 years to work on strengthening U.S. voting integrity:

    -- Strong Voter ID
    -- Proof of Citizenship
    -- Mail Voting "only based on need"
    -- Ballot Harvesting Ban
    ___

    The worst case for this cycle is Biden declaring a victory based on fraud. If the GOP can demonstrate ballot issues greater than the margin of victory in a state, the courts would block the losing DNC candidate. However, Trump Derangement Syndrome is so virulent among Democrats they may attempt to end the the nation rather than concede defeat.

    PEACE 😷

    I agree with you in general, A123, but what would 4 more years do, when the last 4 years have been shot to hell? 4 more years of arguing with the very people you hired, twitting up a storm, getting distracted from your non-existent long-term strategy, and just bullshitting in general? What’s the point?

    I wanted to agree with Buzz Mohawk but ran out this morning. It was good while it lasted. It’s probably time to make a new plan, Stan.

    • Replies: @A123
    Given the willingness of the Judiciary to ignore the Constitution, step #1 was replacing failed judges with serious ones. This is already having dividends. Look at the court case win forcing "asylum seekers" to stay in Mexico.

    Obamagate investigations, arrests, and trials will be underway. Trump will not be hampered by a Special Counsel witch hunt.

    There is every reason to believe Trump's 2nd Term will be much more productive than his 1st.

    PEACE 😷

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    It’s probably time to make a new plan, Stan.
     
    What is your plan? AFAIK surrender is not an effective strategy.
    , @MBlanc46
    I’m in my last inning. I’ll see less of the USSA than you will. But I’d still like to put off the permanent, complete rule by Dems four years. Maybe if I were younger, I’d be for hotting up the cold civil war tomorrow. I can see that if you’ve got thirty or forty years left, you might want to get to the other side of it as soon as possible. Sooner or later, however it plays out, a new plan has to be the goal.
  7. @Buzz Mohawk
    It was a nice country while it lasted.

    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/9/16/enhanced-buzz-7899-1352495508-3.jpg

    It was a nice country while it lasted.

    Voting fraud has been a huge part of this “nice country” from the very beginning. It’s well known that Kennedy probably stole Texas and Illinois via fraud from Nixon in 1960. And gilded-age political machines like Tammany Hall were more overtly corrupt than even today’s Democrats. Our culture has degraded over time, but our political system has not: it was always this bad.

    Fraud, just like voter importation, is a perfectly logical consequence of democracy.

  8. A123 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you in general, A123, but what would 4 more years do, when the last 4 years have been shot to hell? 4 more years of arguing with the very people you hired, twitting up a storm, getting distracted from your non-existent long-term strategy, and just bullshitting in general? What's the point?

    I wanted to agree with Buzz Mohawk but ran out this morning. It was good while it lasted. It's probably time to make a new plan, Stan.

    Given the willingness of the Judiciary to ignore the Constitution, step #1 was replacing failed judges with serious ones. This is already having dividends. Look at the court case win forcing “asylum seekers” to stay in Mexico.

    Obamagate investigations, arrests, and trials will be underway. Trump will not be hampered by a Special Counsel witch hunt.

    There is every reason to believe Trump’s 2nd Term will be much more productive than his 1st.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The judges are a plus, I will admit, A123. I hope most of them don't go native, like lot of previous appointees. Note the Peak Stupidity dubbed Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity.

    VDare occasionally has good news on the immigration front, but it's mostly due to hard work and a lock of sabotage by the underlings. If President Trump could weed out all the anti-Trump, anti-American management at many levels of HIS executive branch, that'd be a real step. However, you don't hire swamp dwellers to drain the swamp, as he's been doing.
  9. If anybody is reading this with any power in your state election, figure out a way to open source review of voting and vote counting, figure out how to bring it under the eye of 4chan. Internet autism will btfo democrat fraud if we give it a chance.

    I’m not convinced I want Trump to win. But that’s how to get it done.

  10. @A123
    Given the willingness of the Judiciary to ignore the Constitution, step #1 was replacing failed judges with serious ones. This is already having dividends. Look at the court case win forcing "asylum seekers" to stay in Mexico.

    Obamagate investigations, arrests, and trials will be underway. Trump will not be hampered by a Special Counsel witch hunt.

    There is every reason to believe Trump's 2nd Term will be much more productive than his 1st.

    PEACE 😷

    The judges are a plus, I will admit, A123. I hope most of them don’t go native, like lot of previous appointees. Note the Peak Stupidity dubbed Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity.

    VDare occasionally has good news on the immigration front, but it’s mostly due to hard work and a lock of sabotage by the underlings. If President Trump could weed out all the anti-Trump, anti-American management at many levels of HIS executive branch, that’d be a real step. However, you don’t hire swamp dwellers to drain the swamp, as he’s been doing.

  11. res says:

    Is it too much to ask for voters to receive a password tied to their social security numbers to verify their ballot selections have been accurately recorded subsequent to submitting their votes?

    Hard to do that while retaining the secret ballot. I also doubt that kind of fraud would be the choice anyway. Given how low turnouts typically are it is much easier to just arrange for non-voters (dead, lazy, etc.) to “vote.” And that is exactly why full scale vote by mail is so dangerous.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  12. @Unit472
    Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.

    By all means we should trust the banks for such an essential function. They certainly have no conflicts of interest….

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  13. Other than the case of Gore vs. Bush, in my experience progressives seem to be pretty dismissive of fraud, often outright denying that it exists. I find this phenomenon really odd because it is easy to read about historical examples of fraud, or to posit where there is enormous money and power involved, there are motivations for fraud.

    Is it that they are naturally dismissive of fraud, or that they are just regurgitating talking points, of Democratic strategists? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @res
    A cynical person might argue that is because they are responsible for most of the fraud and only complain when the fraud disfavors them.

    In case it's not obvious, I strongly agree with your comment.
  14. @songbird
    Other than the case of Gore vs. Bush, in my experience progressives seem to be pretty dismissive of fraud, often outright denying that it exists. I find this phenomenon really odd because it is easy to read about historical examples of fraud, or to posit where there is enormous money and power involved, there are motivations for fraud.

    Is it that they are naturally dismissive of fraud, or that they are just regurgitating talking points, of Democratic strategists? I don't know.

    A cynical person might argue that is because they are responsible for most of the fraud and only complain when the fraud disfavors them.

    In case it’s not obvious, I strongly agree with your comment.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I guess anytime the dialogue involves illegals voting, they must intuitively understand that it favors them.
  15. Honest question here. Why is everyone assuming this is going to benefit mainly Democrats? If it’s so easy to cheat the system, why won’t Republicans be doing it too?

    • Replies: @botazefa

    Honest question here. Why is everyone assuming this is going to benefit mainly Democrats? If it’s so easy to cheat the system, why won’t Republicans be doing it too?
     
    Democrats maybe have a constituency more willing to be a party to fraud? All one has to do is collect mail-in ballots from that constituency to unburden them of having to face implicit racism on election day.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Industrial scale fraud is easier and more profitable to conduct in dense urban voting districts aka Democrat districts. Also, many urban, melanin-rich districts are places for which it is very hard to find Republican, melanin-poor poll watchers to attend. And even if you can find Republican poll watchers for those districts, and they do see something untoward, Wachoo gun du bout it whatey?!?
  16. @Buzz Mohawk
    It was a nice country while it lasted.

    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/9/16/enhanced-buzz-7899-1352495508-3.jpg

    51-star flag?

    • Replies: @A123

    51-star flag?
     
    With Pelosi hiding things in legislation, anything possible. DC as the 51st State maybe?

    PEACE 😷
    , @MEH 0910
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alannaokun/what-the-american-flag-might-look-like-if-puerto-r
  17. Is it too much to ask for voters to receive a password tied to their social security numbers to verify their ballot selections have been accurately recorded subsequent to submitting their votes?

    If that’s the level of anonymity you find satisfactory, why not just run the damn elections with a facebook poll! Facebook knows exactly who we all are, thanks to the free sharing done by all our eager-to-appear-conformist womenfolk.

    Man, how disheartening to hear such nonsense from a blogger I’d come to respect.

    How ’bout just good old fashioned paper balloting, same as has always been? Absentee voters need not apply.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, combine the above with a paper ballot.
  18. @Unit472
    Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.

    Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.

    … is a great example of a supremely stupid idea.

  19. @Fidelios Automata
    51-star flag?

    51-star flag?

    With Pelosi hiding things in legislation, anything possible. DC as the 51st State maybe?

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @songbird
    Congress seems to be extremely favorable to making Puerto Rico the 51st state. It has only been stopped so far due to formalities about the amount of turnout that there needs to be on a Puerto Rico-wide ballot.

    Personally, I think the idea seems crazy. At the very least, Americans should be able to vote whether they actually want Puerto Rico to become a state, or even if they want to cut it loose. Though, I suspect there would be a gigantic exodus, if it were cut loose, and I suppose that the majority are already stateside.
  20. @Jedi Night
    Honest question here. Why is everyone assuming this is going to benefit mainly Democrats? If it's so easy to cheat the system, why won't Republicans be doing it too?

    Honest question here. Why is everyone assuming this is going to benefit mainly Democrats? If it’s so easy to cheat the system, why won’t Republicans be doing it too?

    Democrats maybe have a constituency more willing to be a party to fraud? All one has to do is collect mail-in ballots from that constituency to unburden them of having to face implicit racism on election day.

  21. The Republican candidate in a hotly contested special election in California was being declared the winner after voting was conducted almost entirely by mail.

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating,” Donald Trump told reporters. “And so I’m against it. “We’re not going to lose elections because of that.”

    Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud. There must be an immediate investigation.

    • Replies: @A123

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. "
     
    There is a difference between:
    -- Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    -- Guaranteed to be corrupt.

    If you left your house vulnerable, front door unlocked, for a single day.... Getting lucky and not being robbed would not show that you are invulnerable.
    _____

    SJW Globalists start the fraud machine when they think they will lose. Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic.

    The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.

    PEACE 😷
  22. Interesting. Solid majorities of every group polled expects at least some degree of voter fraud. Although that 1/5 of Democrats probably has to be interpreted as “thinks Republicans will find a way to keep black and brown votes from being counted.” How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me, but then I don’t spend my time watching MSNBC and CNN.

    • Replies: @A123

    How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me,
     
    What? You have not heard of the mineral ballatomelitirantanotinium. Ballots are impregnated with the material, and they become magnetically marked when handled with higher than approved levels of melatonin in the skin such as blacks and gingers.

    PEACE 😷



    Hopefully everyone will get the joke... How much do you want to bet there is at least one complaint though? 😱
    , @songbird

    How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me, but then I don’t spend my time watching MSNBC and CNN.
     
    Their argument is based on voting districts - essentially, that the opposition is not going for the individual ballots, but for the minority districts and making a lot of the ballots disappear. (I don't watch CNN, but I remember arguing with someone)

    I'd kind of turn in on its head - if you have some precinct where you have people who will vote 99% Democrat (and there are such areas, due to demographics, amazing as it is), then, in theory, that makes it easy to just increase the number of ballots, going beyond the actual turnout.
  23. A123 says:
    @Corvinus
    The Republican candidate in a hotly contested special election in California was being declared the winner after voting was conducted almost entirely by mail.

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are "subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating," Donald Trump told reporters. "And so I'm against it. "We're not going to lose elections because of that."

    Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia's victory was the result of fraud. There must be an immediate investigation.

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. “

    There is a difference between:
    — Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    — Guaranteed to be corrupt.

    If you left your house vulnerable, front door unlocked, for a single day…. Getting lucky and not being robbed would not show that you are invulnerable.
    _____

    SJW Globalists start the fraud machine when they think they will lose. Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic.

    The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "There is a difference between:
    — Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    — Guaranteed to be corrupt."

    With mail-in voting POTENTIALLY being vulnerable and subject to corruption. You would have to show direct evidence in every case how and why mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.

    "Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic."

    You're going to need more than mere speculation on your part. Specific proof is required here.

    "The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent."

    Again, you're going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If Garcia loses in five months, we'll have some pretty strong circumstantial evidence.
  24. @A123

    51-star flag?
     
    With Pelosi hiding things in legislation, anything possible. DC as the 51st State maybe?

    PEACE 😷

    Congress seems to be extremely favorable to making Puerto Rico the 51st state. It has only been stopped so far due to formalities about the amount of turnout that there needs to be on a Puerto Rico-wide ballot.

    Personally, I think the idea seems crazy. At the very least, Americans should be able to vote whether they actually want Puerto Rico to become a state, or even if they want to cut it loose. Though, I suspect there would be a gigantic exodus, if it were cut loose, and I suppose that the majority are already stateside.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I suppose that the majority are already stateside.
     
    They have to go back.
  25. A123 says:
    @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Interesting. Solid majorities of every group polled expects at least some degree of voter fraud. Although that 1/5 of Democrats probably has to be interpreted as "thinks Republicans will find a way to keep black and brown votes from being counted." How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me, but then I don't spend my time watching MSNBC and CNN.

    How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me,

    What? You have not heard of the mineral ballatomelitirantanotinium. Ballots are impregnated with the material, and they become magnetically marked when handled with higher than approved levels of melatonin in the skin such as blacks and gingers.

    PEACE 😷

    [MORE]

    Hopefully everyone will get the joke… How much do you want to bet there is at least one complaint though? 😱

  26. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Interesting. Solid majorities of every group polled expects at least some degree of voter fraud. Although that 1/5 of Democrats probably has to be interpreted as "thinks Republicans will find a way to keep black and brown votes from being counted." How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me, but then I don't spend my time watching MSNBC and CNN.

    How you determine the color of the voter in a secret ballot system is beyond me, but then I don’t spend my time watching MSNBC and CNN.

    Their argument is based on voting districts – essentially, that the opposition is not going for the individual ballots, but for the minority districts and making a lot of the ballots disappear. (I don’t watch CNN, but I remember arguing with someone)

    I’d kind of turn in on its head – if you have some precinct where you have people who will vote 99% Democrat (and there are such areas, due to demographics, amazing as it is), then, in theory, that makes it easy to just increase the number of ballots, going beyond the actual turnout.

  27. There is a “controlling” federal court decision, I think a lower court ruling involving a Nebraska requirement for some proof of citizenship for voter registration (normally a SSN will suffice) which was invalided. That was appealed and the Supreme Court let that stand. This was sometime in the 60s I think.

    That one decision is why illegal alien voter fraud is so rampant. The federal law states you have to be a US citizen to vote for federal offices but that decision makes enforcing that requirement almost impossible. It needs to be overturned.

    Yes, various suggestions here about requiring SSNs to be used for mail-in votes would be nice, but legally untenable at the moment.

    If Trump wins again, time for a new, better SC to invalidate that decision.

  28. @res
    A cynical person might argue that is because they are responsible for most of the fraud and only complain when the fraud disfavors them.

    In case it's not obvious, I strongly agree with your comment.

    I guess anytime the dialogue involves illegals voting, they must intuitively understand that it favors them.

  29. Ironically, it was a faking of 1989 elections that set off waves of exodus and civil protests that brought down the repressive East German government of Erich Honecker.

    Maybe Trump should start organising massive “Restore the Republic” rallies in those states to preëmpt an almost certain loss by fraud.

  30. @A123

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. "
     
    There is a difference between:
    -- Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    -- Guaranteed to be corrupt.

    If you left your house vulnerable, front door unlocked, for a single day.... Getting lucky and not being robbed would not show that you are invulnerable.
    _____

    SJW Globalists start the fraud machine when they think they will lose. Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic.

    The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.

    PEACE 😷

    “There is a difference between:
    — Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    — Guaranteed to be corrupt.”

    With mail-in voting POTENTIALLY being vulnerable and subject to corruption. You would have to show direct evidence in every case how and why mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.

    “Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic.”

    You’re going to need more than mere speculation on your part. Specific proof is required here.

    “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    Again, you’re going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.

    • Replies: @A123

    From #21: Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.
     
    You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion.

    mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.
     
    I never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did.

    Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?



    “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”
     
    Again, you’re going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.
     
    As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required.

    If you believe the CA-25 Special Election is relevant to the General Election. It is up to you to provide proof.

    PEACE 😷

  31. A123 says:
    @Corvinus
    "There is a difference between:
    — Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    — Guaranteed to be corrupt."

    With mail-in voting POTENTIALLY being vulnerable and subject to corruption. You would have to show direct evidence in every case how and why mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.

    "Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic."

    You're going to need more than mere speculation on your part. Specific proof is required here.

    "The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent."

    Again, you're going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.

    From #21: Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.

    You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion.

    mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.

    I never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did.

    Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?

    “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    Again, you’re going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.

    As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required.

    If you believe the CA-25 Special Election is relevant to the General Election. It is up to you to provide proof.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion."

    I'm merely basing my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating".

    If he believes an election based on mail-in ballots leads to corruption, should not there be an investigation in California? I'm going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don't know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption.

    Let's go back to your assertion --> The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group "accidentally permitted fairness"? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    " never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did. Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?"

    You're misreading what I'm saying. A number of people (including Trump) believe that mail-in voting causes fraud, either in most or all circumstances. People have to show proof of that to be the case, rather than automatically assume. What do YOU think? Do you believe mail-in voting leads to fraud? If yes, what is your evidence? I don't know you're position, so that is why I'm asking. Feel free to respond or not respond.

    "As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required."

    But it does have future relevance, especially if increasing numbers of people, Republican and Democrat, desire a mail-in ballot in consideration of Covid-19, provided of course there are specific criteria that must be met. That is, the PROCESS is relevant now and in the future, especially if more voters make requests for mail-in ballots.
  32. @A123

    From #21: Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.
     
    You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion.

    mail-in voting in the past was GUARANTEED to be corrupt.
     
    I never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did.

    Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?



    “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”
     
    Again, you’re going to have to offer specific proof to support your assertion.
     
    As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required.

    If you believe the CA-25 Special Election is relevant to the General Election. It is up to you to provide proof.

    PEACE 😷

    “You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion.”

    I’m merely basing my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating”.

    If he believes an election based on mail-in ballots leads to corruption, should not there be an investigation in California? I’m going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don’t know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption.

    Let’s go back to your assertion –> The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group “accidentally permitted fairness”? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    ” never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did. Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?”

    You’re misreading what I’m saying. A number of people (including Trump) believe that mail-in voting causes fraud, either in most or all circumstances. People have to show proof of that to be the case, rather than automatically assume. What do YOU think? Do you believe mail-in voting leads to fraud? If yes, what is your evidence? I don’t know you’re position, so that is why I’m asking. Feel free to respond or not respond.

    “As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required.”

    But it does have future relevance, especially if increasing numbers of people, Republican and Democrat, desire a mail-in ballot in consideration of Covid-19, provided of course there are specific criteria that must be met. That is, the PROCESS is relevant now and in the future, especially if more voters make requests for mail-in ballots.

    • Replies: @A123
    Why do you refuse to provide proof about the CA-25 election (in you post #21)?

    Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.
     
    You need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up your assertion that the CA-25 election result was a result of mail fraud.

    We cannot go any further until you provide evidence to back up or withdraw your allegation.

    PEACE 😷

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Keep it up Corvinus, and with luck, you will see the shooting civil war you so earnestly desire.
  33. @Corvinus
    "You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion."

    I'm merely basing my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating".

    If he believes an election based on mail-in ballots leads to corruption, should not there be an investigation in California? I'm going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don't know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption.

    Let's go back to your assertion --> The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group "accidentally permitted fairness"? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    " never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did. Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?"

    You're misreading what I'm saying. A number of people (including Trump) believe that mail-in voting causes fraud, either in most or all circumstances. People have to show proof of that to be the case, rather than automatically assume. What do YOU think? Do you believe mail-in voting leads to fraud? If yes, what is your evidence? I don't know you're position, so that is why I'm asking. Feel free to respond or not respond.

    "As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required."

    But it does have future relevance, especially if increasing numbers of people, Republican and Democrat, desire a mail-in ballot in consideration of Covid-19, provided of course there are specific criteria that must be met. That is, the PROCESS is relevant now and in the future, especially if more voters make requests for mail-in ballots.

    Why do you refuse to provide proof about the CA-25 election (in you post #21)?

    Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.

    You need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up your assertion that the CA-25 election result was a result of mail fraud.

    We cannot go any further until you provide evidence to back up or withdraw your allegation.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up your assertion that the CA-25 election result was a result of mail fraud. We cannot go any further until you provide evidence to back up or withdraw your allegation."

    LOL, that's rich. To repeat, first, I based my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating”. Do you not realize the irony here? A Republican wins an election through mail-in voting, He BENEFITTED from this PROCESS. Yet, Trump and others believe that the outcome through this process is leads to corruption. There is hypocrisy, as well, for why are they not calling for an investigation?

    Second, NOTICE I stated that "I’m going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don’t know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption."

    Third, you asserted "The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”**

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group “accidentally permitted fairness”? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    So follow your own advice--you need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up this claim.**
  34. @Jedi Night
    Honest question here. Why is everyone assuming this is going to benefit mainly Democrats? If it's so easy to cheat the system, why won't Republicans be doing it too?

    Industrial scale fraud is easier and more profitable to conduct in dense urban voting districts aka Democrat districts. Also, many urban, melanin-rich districts are places for which it is very hard to find Republican, melanin-poor poll watchers to attend. And even if you can find Republican poll watchers for those districts, and they do see something untoward, Wachoo gun du bout it whatey?!?

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    There are very few Repubs in Chicago. There is almost zero chance of keeping them from stealing enough votes to push the state Dem.
  35. Charles Erwin Wilson [AKA "Charles Erwin Wilson Three"] says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you in general, A123, but what would 4 more years do, when the last 4 years have been shot to hell? 4 more years of arguing with the very people you hired, twitting up a storm, getting distracted from your non-existent long-term strategy, and just bullshitting in general? What's the point?

    I wanted to agree with Buzz Mohawk but ran out this morning. It was good while it lasted. It's probably time to make a new plan, Stan.

    It’s probably time to make a new plan, Stan.

    What is your plan? AFAIK surrender is not an effective strategy.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Charles, I will not surrender to the Police State USSA that is likely coming. At some point I may have to get the family out, so I can be a part of any struggle that has a chance in hell. (It's not like there is any place half-way free left in the world, or I/we'd have gone there LONG AGO - I knew our country was going to shit by 1995, but it really only sunk in well after 9/11, arguably - in my head - by 2008.)

    That was an answer on a personal basis. A more general answer for the country would be separation, but that answer depends on where you live. Civil disobedience is a lot easier than people think, and will be easier yet when the people have less to lose - coming too.
  36. Charles Erwin Wilson [AKA "Charles Erwin Wilson Three"] says:
    @Corvinus
    "You are clearly speculating. Please provide proof of your assertion."

    I'm merely basing my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating".

    If he believes an election based on mail-in ballots leads to corruption, should not there be an investigation in California? I'm going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don't know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption.

    Let's go back to your assertion --> The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group "accidentally permitted fairness"? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    " never said that. It is up to you to provide proof that I did. Or, do you admit you are lying about my position?"

    You're misreading what I'm saying. A number of people (including Trump) believe that mail-in voting causes fraud, either in most or all circumstances. People have to show proof of that to be the case, rather than automatically assume. What do YOU think? Do you believe mail-in voting leads to fraud? If yes, what is your evidence? I don't know you're position, so that is why I'm asking. Feel free to respond or not respond.

    "As my statement is that this event has no future relevance, no further examination is required."

    But it does have future relevance, especially if increasing numbers of people, Republican and Democrat, desire a mail-in ballot in consideration of Covid-19, provided of course there are specific criteria that must be met. That is, the PROCESS is relevant now and in the future, especially if more voters make requests for mail-in ballots.

    Keep it up Corvinus, and with luck, you will see the shooting civil war you so earnestly desire.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "you will see the shooting civil war you so earnestly desire."

    Tough guy Internet Warrior Talk. I'll wait for the movie to come out.
  37. Anonymous[267] • Disclaimer says:

    Honest question for commenters here, of the following groups of people you personally know in meatspace, which group is larger:

    1. People more favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.
    2. People less favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.

    I don’t know anyone in the first group, I know about a dozen people in the second group. So if the polls are saying Trump’s lost support, I can totally believe them.

    Yes, let’s make sure there’s no fraud. Tell the media we’re guarding against “Russian hackers.” But let’s also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election, and it’ll be because he didn’t do what he said he was going to do.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    There's also the category "Support Trump about the same in 2020 as in 2016." I know quite a few people in that category. It's probably bigger than either of your two categories. I don't know anyone personally who has soured enough on Trump not to vote for him. I only see those people online.

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can't wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.

    For former Trump supporters, I can't really see a reason to vote for Biden or to stay home unless you've decided that it's time to burn the republic to the ground. That's a perfectly valid choice, of course, but I don't think that represents a big portion of the electorate.

    , @dfordoom

    But let’s also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election
     
    One thing this polling could be indicating is that, even if he loses in a fair election, many Trump supporters are not going to accept the result. That's a dangerous situation.

    Actually it's a very dangerous situation for the Right. Whether one likes to admit it or not the Right does have a deranged lunatic fringe and in such a situation there's a real possibility that some of them will do stupid things. Either a random act of violence or a few idiots online advocating civil war.

    That will give the Right's enemies just the opportunity they've been praying for to institute a crackdown on dissent that will make your eyes water.

    And yes, I know the "Left" has a deranged lunatic fringe as well, but it does them less damage because they have the Megaphone.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I know both. 1) is mostly traditional conservative types, 2) is mostly disaffected non-partisans who wanted Trump to shake things up.
  38. @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with you in general, A123, but what would 4 more years do, when the last 4 years have been shot to hell? 4 more years of arguing with the very people you hired, twitting up a storm, getting distracted from your non-existent long-term strategy, and just bullshitting in general? What's the point?

    I wanted to agree with Buzz Mohawk but ran out this morning. It was good while it lasted. It's probably time to make a new plan, Stan.

    I’m in my last inning. I’ll see less of the USSA than you will. But I’d still like to put off the permanent, complete rule by Dems four years. Maybe if I were younger, I’d be for hotting up the cold civil war tomorrow. I can see that if you’ve got thirty or forty years left, you might want to get to the other side of it as soon as possible. Sooner or later, however it plays out, a new plan has to be the goal.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  39. @Anonymous
    Honest question for commenters here, of the following groups of people you personally know in meatspace, which group is larger:

    1. People more favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.
    2. People less favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.

    I don't know anyone in the first group, I know about a dozen people in the second group. So if the polls are saying Trump's lost support, I can totally believe them.

    Yes, let's make sure there's no fraud. Tell the media we're guarding against "Russian hackers." But let's also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election, and it'll be because he didn't do what he said he was going to do.

    There’s also the category “Support Trump about the same in 2020 as in 2016.” I know quite a few people in that category. It’s probably bigger than either of your two categories. I don’t know anyone personally who has soured enough on Trump not to vote for him. I only see those people online.

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can’t wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.

    For former Trump supporters, I can’t really see a reason to vote for Biden or to stay home unless you’ve decided that it’s time to burn the republic to the ground. That’s a perfectly valid choice, of course, but I don’t think that represents a big portion of the electorate.

    • Replies: @res

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can’t wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.
     
    Well...do you think Hillary would have been a better or worse choice?
  40. @Almost Missouri
    Industrial scale fraud is easier and more profitable to conduct in dense urban voting districts aka Democrat districts. Also, many urban, melanin-rich districts are places for which it is very hard to find Republican, melanin-poor poll watchers to attend. And even if you can find Republican poll watchers for those districts, and they do see something untoward, Wachoo gun du bout it whatey?!?

    There are very few Repubs in Chicago. There is almost zero chance of keeping them from stealing enough votes to push the state Dem.

  41. @Buzz Mohawk
    It was a nice country while it lasted.

    https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr02/2012/11/9/16/enhanced-buzz-7899-1352495508-3.jpg

    Some of us reached this conclusion 12 years ago.

    https://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2008/11/04/7699/

    In my memory, Kathy Shaidle’s post was originally accompanied by the classic Peggy Joseph clip:

    and words to the effect of America had a choice of self-reliance and Sarah Palin or Peggy Joseph and someone’s gonna pay my bills. America chose Peggy Joseph.

    America: it was nice while it lasted.

  42. @Unit472
    Banks have built systems capable of handling millions of transactions daily. It’s why the government let’s JP Morgan administer the Food Stamp EBT. No reason banks could not be our polling places using a password protected EBT type card voters could use at any ATM or store that takes credit cards with an attached video terminal containing the ballot.

    Yes, because there’s no corruption in the banking industry, LOL.
    Don’t bankers decide already who gets elected, anyway?

  43. @Cloudbuster
    There's also the category "Support Trump about the same in 2020 as in 2016." I know quite a few people in that category. It's probably bigger than either of your two categories. I don't know anyone personally who has soured enough on Trump not to vote for him. I only see those people online.

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can't wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.

    For former Trump supporters, I can't really see a reason to vote for Biden or to stay home unless you've decided that it's time to burn the republic to the ground. That's a perfectly valid choice, of course, but I don't think that represents a big portion of the electorate.

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can’t wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.

    Well…do you think Hillary would have been a better or worse choice?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Better than Biden in that she is at least, so far as I know, not suffering from dementia. You have to admit, that is a pretty low bar.
  44. @res

    I also know a lot of Biden supporters, but I really can’t wrap my brain around it. A houseplant would be a less embarrassing choice.
     
    Well...do you think Hillary would have been a better or worse choice?

    Better than Biden in that she is at least, so far as I know, not suffering from dementia. You have to admit, that is a pretty low bar.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I disagree with you (for a change), Cloudbuster. If we're just talking Biden, as in, he lives for 4 years, then I'm all for dementia over the Hildabeast - less damage that way. If Stacey Abrams or some other piece of work like that were VP, then well, please don't make me pick!

    BTW, for the commenter with the good question about Trump voters, I'd be in the category of still going out to vote for him. However, I don't think it takes much effort. There are lots of people who apparently do, as we can see each election by the turn-out numbers (or they are just disgusted with it all). Trump won't get the turn-out from the great enthusiasm he received for his immigration-invasion stance. He's barely done squat - he can bullshit all he wants, but lots of us know he's barely done squat.

    OTOH, people can just come out to vote against the Blue-team.
  45. @Anonymous
    Honest question for commenters here, of the following groups of people you personally know in meatspace, which group is larger:

    1. People more favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.
    2. People less favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.

    I don't know anyone in the first group, I know about a dozen people in the second group. So if the polls are saying Trump's lost support, I can totally believe them.

    Yes, let's make sure there's no fraud. Tell the media we're guarding against "Russian hackers." But let's also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election, and it'll be because he didn't do what he said he was going to do.

    But let’s also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election

    One thing this polling could be indicating is that, even if he loses in a fair election, many Trump supporters are not going to accept the result. That’s a dangerous situation.

    Actually it’s a very dangerous situation for the Right. Whether one likes to admit it or not the Right does have a deranged lunatic fringe and in such a situation there’s a real possibility that some of them will do stupid things. Either a random act of violence or a few idiots online advocating civil war.

    That will give the Right’s enemies just the opportunity they’ve been praying for to institute a crackdown on dissent that will make your eyes water.

    And yes, I know the “Left” has a deranged lunatic fringe as well, but it does them less damage because they have the Megaphone.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  46. @Charles Erwin Wilson

    It’s probably time to make a new plan, Stan.
     
    What is your plan? AFAIK surrender is not an effective strategy.

    Charles, I will not surrender to the Police State USSA that is likely coming. At some point I may have to get the family out, so I can be a part of any struggle that has a chance in hell. (It’s not like there is any place half-way free left in the world, or I/we’d have gone there LONG AGO – I knew our country was going to shit by 1995, but it really only sunk in well after 9/11, arguably – in my head – by 2008.)

    That was an answer on a personal basis. A more general answer for the country would be separation, but that answer depends on where you live. Civil disobedience is a lot easier than people think, and will be easier yet when the people have less to lose – coming too.

  47. @Cloudbuster
    Better than Biden in that she is at least, so far as I know, not suffering from dementia. You have to admit, that is a pretty low bar.

    I disagree with you (for a change), Cloudbuster. If we’re just talking Biden, as in, he lives for 4 years, then I’m all for dementia over the Hildabeast – less damage that way. If Stacey Abrams or some other piece of work like that were VP, then well, please don’t make me pick!

    BTW, for the commenter with the good question about Trump voters, I’d be in the category of still going out to vote for him. However, I don’t think it takes much effort. There are lots of people who apparently do, as we can see each election by the turn-out numbers (or they are just disgusted with it all). Trump won’t get the turn-out from the great enthusiasm he received for his immigration-invasion stance. He’s barely done squat – he can bullshit all he wants, but lots of us know he’s barely done squat.

    OTOH, people can just come out to vote against the Blue-team.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    It's not clear to me that demented Biden as a puppet will be less damaging than Hillary -- his puppet masters are people fully as evil as Hillary, and Biden's dementia gives them great power with no accountability. All presidents are owned, but at least when they are not senile they have some sense of self-preservation and concern for their image and future. Puppet Biden can be the face of all sorts of awful decisions, then they can throw him to the wolves if necessary and he won't even realize. Also I feel we are extremely likely to end up with the undoubtedly horrific VP pick as president for at least part of the term.

    There's also the incalculable damage to the office itself. Everyone knows Biden is not mentally sharp, to say the least. It is just a big FU to the idea that the man in the suit means anything. I suppose that's a good thing if it causes red-pilling, but that falls into the "burn it down" category I mentioned earlier.

  48. @Achmed E. Newman
    I disagree with you (for a change), Cloudbuster. If we're just talking Biden, as in, he lives for 4 years, then I'm all for dementia over the Hildabeast - less damage that way. If Stacey Abrams or some other piece of work like that were VP, then well, please don't make me pick!

    BTW, for the commenter with the good question about Trump voters, I'd be in the category of still going out to vote for him. However, I don't think it takes much effort. There are lots of people who apparently do, as we can see each election by the turn-out numbers (or they are just disgusted with it all). Trump won't get the turn-out from the great enthusiasm he received for his immigration-invasion stance. He's barely done squat - he can bullshit all he wants, but lots of us know he's barely done squat.

    OTOH, people can just come out to vote against the Blue-team.

    It’s not clear to me that demented Biden as a puppet will be less damaging than Hillary — his puppet masters are people fully as evil as Hillary, and Biden’s dementia gives them great power with no accountability. All presidents are owned, but at least when they are not senile they have some sense of self-preservation and concern for their image and future. Puppet Biden can be the face of all sorts of awful decisions, then they can throw him to the wolves if necessary and he won’t even realize. Also I feel we are extremely likely to end up with the undoubtedly horrific VP pick as president for at least part of the term.

    There’s also the incalculable damage to the office itself. Everyone knows Biden is not mentally sharp, to say the least. It is just a big FU to the idea that the man in the suit means anything. I suppose that’s a good thing if it causes red-pilling, but that falls into the “burn it down” category I mentioned earlier.

  49. @A123
    Why do you refuse to provide proof about the CA-25 election (in you post #21)?

    Looks like Republican businessman Mike Garcia’s victory was the result of fraud.
     
    You need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up your assertion that the CA-25 election result was a result of mail fraud.

    We cannot go any further until you provide evidence to back up or withdraw your allegation.

    PEACE 😷

    “You need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up your assertion that the CA-25 election result was a result of mail fraud. We cannot go any further until you provide evidence to back up or withdraw your allegation.”

    LOL, that’s rich. To repeat, first, I based my assertion on the position taken by those who oppose mail in-voting. NOTICE I provided a direct quotation by Trump on the matter. He stated clearly that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. Tremendous corruption, cheating”. Do you not realize the irony here? A Republican wins an election through mail-in voting, He BENEFITTED from this PROCESS. Yet, Trump and others believe that the outcome through this process is leads to corruption. There is hypocrisy, as well, for why are they not calling for an investigation?

    Second, NOTICE I stated that “I’m going on what Trump succinctly stated. I don’t know if there was corruption there, but Trump is of the mindset that this process (mail-in ballots) causes corruption.”

    Third, you asserted “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”**

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group “accidentally permitted fairness”? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    So follow your own advice–you need to provide documentary proof with citations to back up this claim.**

  50. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Keep it up Corvinus, and with luck, you will see the shooting civil war you so earnestly desire.

    “you will see the shooting civil war you so earnestly desire.”

    Tough guy Internet Warrior Talk. I’ll wait for the movie to come out.

  51. Corvinus the Troll added to “block commenter list” for cause. Lying about evidence of fraud in the CA-25 Special Election.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus the Troll added to “block commenter list” for cause.

    Do you enjoy making things up as you go along?

    "Lying about evidence of fraud in the CA-25 Special Election."

    LOL. You're doubling down, that is to be expected. You just do not understand how discourse works. Again, YOU asserted “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”**

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group “accidentally permitted fairness”? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    Follow your own advice–provide documentary proof with citations to back up this claim.**
    , @Mr. Rational
    What took you so long?
  52. @A123
    Corvinus the Troll added to "block commenter list" for cause. Lying about evidence of fraud in the CA-25 Special Election.

    PEACE 😷

    “Corvinus the Troll added to “block commenter list” for cause.

    Do you enjoy making things up as you go along?

    “Lying about evidence of fraud in the CA-25 Special Election.”

    LOL. You’re doubling down, that is to be expected. You just do not understand how discourse works. Again, YOU asserted “The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.”**

    You insist that this situation is FACT. On what basis? What specific evidence do you have that shows this group “accidentally permitted fairness”? Certainly you have sources to support your claim. Otherwise, it is not a FACT, but rather SPECULATION.

    Follow your own advice–provide documentary proof with citations to back up this claim.**

  53. Interesting. I thought Republicans champion states’ rights/local control.** Perhaps they will rally against their President who is challenging such notions.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/20/trump-threatens-federal-funding-for-michigan-mail-in-voting-270609

    Trump has claimed that this policy is ripe for corruption– “Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,” Trump tweeted. “This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!”

    We had a local election in California with national implications. A Republican won a House seat over a Democrat. The voting was done primarily through mail-in ballots. Should not the California election be investigated, again on the basis of Trump’s position? I DON’T KNOW IF THERE WAS ACTUAL CORRUPTION THAT TOOK PLACE. I am simply indicating that apparently Trump thinks they could have been malfeasance.

    NOTICE how two Republican Secretaries of State–Nevada and Georgia–have met citizen requests for absentee ballots that will be sent in by mail. Are these actions by these officials “done illegally”? Of course, Trump could refrain from releasing those funds to Michigan, which is his executive prerogative, but what specific evidence is there that voting by mail has led to corruption on a widespread, persistent basis?

    **In the link it says “Republicans in Congress for years have resisted efforts to inject federal oversight into state and local elections.”

  54. @songbird
    Congress seems to be extremely favorable to making Puerto Rico the 51st state. It has only been stopped so far due to formalities about the amount of turnout that there needs to be on a Puerto Rico-wide ballot.

    Personally, I think the idea seems crazy. At the very least, Americans should be able to vote whether they actually want Puerto Rico to become a state, or even if they want to cut it loose. Though, I suspect there would be a gigantic exodus, if it were cut loose, and I suppose that the majority are already stateside.

    I suppose that the majority are already stateside.

    They have to go back.

    • Replies: @A123
    Puerto Rico is an interesting case. It does not have the impact that many believe. Many Puerto Ricans want to work, plan on having money, and want good access back home. They tend to go to Florida with its 0% Income Tax and proximity to PR. This group is highly approachable to the GOP. Even more so as a Populist party. As they want non-governmental jobs, they are a poor fit to the Globalist DNC.

    The recent issues in Venezuela have reinvigorated the dormant anti-Communists from there. Again, this is a population that is concentrated in Florida and is highly approachable for the GOP.

    "Hispanic" is a terrible category for analysis. There are 7 or 8 major subgroups that have very different characteristics.

    PEACE 😷
  55. @A123
    Corvinus the Troll added to "block commenter list" for cause. Lying about evidence of fraud in the CA-25 Special Election.

    PEACE 😷

    What took you so long?

    • Replies: @A123
    As I Christian, I have to give some ground for individuals to do the right thing. Alas, some people are incapable of that.

    Now when it Troll posts, all I see are peaceful grey bars.

    PEACE 😷

  56. @Mr. Rational
    What took you so long?

    As I Christian, I have to give some ground for individuals to do the right thing. Alas, some people are incapable of that.

    Now when it Troll posts, all I see are peaceful grey bars.

    PEACE 😷

  57. A123 says:
    @Mr. Rational

    I suppose that the majority are already stateside.
     
    They have to go back.

    Puerto Rico is an interesting case. It does not have the impact that many believe. Many Puerto Ricans want to work, plan on having money, and want good access back home. They tend to go to Florida with its 0% Income Tax and proximity to PR. This group is highly approachable to the GOP. Even more so as a Populist party. As they want non-governmental jobs, they are a poor fit to the Globalist DNC.

    The recent issues in Venezuela have reinvigorated the dormant anti-Communists from there. Again, this is a population that is concentrated in Florida and is highly approachable for the GOP.

    “Hispanic” is a terrible category for analysis. There are 7 or 8 major subgroups that have very different characteristics.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    This group [Puerto Ricans] is highly approachable to the GOP.

    I'd like to see voting information. Hispanics as a whole have been considered "approachable to the GOP" for 55 years, but somehow they always end up voting Democratic.
  58. @A123
    Puerto Rico is an interesting case. It does not have the impact that many believe. Many Puerto Ricans want to work, plan on having money, and want good access back home. They tend to go to Florida with its 0% Income Tax and proximity to PR. This group is highly approachable to the GOP. Even more so as a Populist party. As they want non-governmental jobs, they are a poor fit to the Globalist DNC.

    The recent issues in Venezuela have reinvigorated the dormant anti-Communists from there. Again, this is a population that is concentrated in Florida and is highly approachable for the GOP.

    "Hispanic" is a terrible category for analysis. There are 7 or 8 major subgroups that have very different characteristics.

    PEACE 😷

    This group [Puerto Ricans] is highly approachable to the GOP.

    I’d like to see voting information. Hispanics as a whole have been considered “approachable to the GOP” for 55 years, but somehow they always end up voting Democratic.

    • Replies: @A123
    This table, which probably will not render correctly, shows Trump's victory margin and % White population

    State Trump margin Electoral vote White population% *

    Michigan 0.3 16 75
    Penn. 0.7 20 76
    Wisc. 0.7 10 80
    Florida 1.2 29 55

    Clearly Trump received a huge number of non-White votes in Florida. By process of elimination one can back out Hispanics of Cuban, Venezuelan, and Puerto Rican ancestry as the likely candidates. What other group(s) could it be?

    Good luck finding a source that is willing to intentionally research and disclose that.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    (1) https://townhall.com/columnists/myraadams/2018/05/16/demographics-are-political-destiny--electorate-changes-between-1976-and-2016-n2480720
    , @Audacious Epigone
    From the GSS, Puerto Ricans self-ID as follows (N = 579):

    Democrat -- 46.5%
    Independent -- 38.9%
    Republican -- 11.9%
    Third party -- 2.7%

    That's on the way to being as Democrat-leaning as blacks and more Democrat-leaning than Hispanics in general.
  59. @Cloudbuster
    This group [Puerto Ricans] is highly approachable to the GOP.

    I'd like to see voting information. Hispanics as a whole have been considered "approachable to the GOP" for 55 years, but somehow they always end up voting Democratic.

    This table, which probably will not render correctly, shows Trump’s victory margin and % White population

    State Trump margin Electoral vote White population% *

    Michigan 0.3 16 75
    Penn. 0.7 20 76
    Wisc. 0.7 10 80
    Florida 1.2 29 55

    Clearly Trump received a huge number of non-White votes in Florida. By process of elimination one can back out Hispanics of Cuban, Venezuelan, and Puerto Rican ancestry as the likely candidates. What other group(s) could it be?

    Good luck finding a source that is willing to intentionally research and disclose that.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    (1) https://townhall.com/columnists/myraadams/2018/05/16/demographics-are-political-destiny–electorate-changes-between-1976-and-2016-n2480720

    • Thanks: Cloudbuster
  60. @botazefa

    Is it too much to ask for voters to receive a password tied to their social security numbers to verify their ballot selections have been accurately recorded subsequent to submitting their votes?
     
    If that's the level of anonymity you find satisfactory, why not just run the damn elections with a facebook poll! Facebook knows exactly who we all are, thanks to the free sharing done by all our eager-to-appear-conformist womenfolk.

    Man, how disheartening to hear such nonsense from a blogger I'd come to respect.

    How 'bout just good old fashioned paper balloting, same as has always been? Absentee voters need not apply.

    Yes, combine the above with a paper ballot.

  61. @A123

    Wait, I thought science proved that mail-in ballots are “subject to tremendous corruption. "
     
    There is a difference between:
    -- Vulnerable & subject to corruption.
    -- Guaranteed to be corrupt.

    If you left your house vulnerable, front door unlocked, for a single day.... Getting lucky and not being robbed would not show that you are invulnerable.
    _____

    SJW Globalists start the fraud machine when they think they will lose. Due to arrogance and hubris they though they were 100% lock to win CA-25. Thus, they did not attempt to cheat. Also, the huge concentration of observers in a single House district made fraud much more problematic.

    The fact that the SJW Globalist DNC accidentally permitted fairness during a Special Election is a one-off special case, not a precedent.

    PEACE 😷

    If Garcia loses in five months, we’ll have some pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

  62. @Anonymous
    Honest question for commenters here, of the following groups of people you personally know in meatspace, which group is larger:

    1. People more favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.
    2. People less favorable towards Donald Trump now than they were in 2016.

    I don't know anyone in the first group, I know about a dozen people in the second group. So if the polls are saying Trump's lost support, I can totally believe them.

    Yes, let's make sure there's no fraud. Tell the media we're guarding against "Russian hackers." But let's also consider that maybe he will lose even in a fair election, and it'll be because he didn't do what he said he was going to do.

    I know both. 1) is mostly traditional conservative types, 2) is mostly disaffected non-partisans who wanted Trump to shake things up.

  63. @Cloudbuster
    This group [Puerto Ricans] is highly approachable to the GOP.

    I'd like to see voting information. Hispanics as a whole have been considered "approachable to the GOP" for 55 years, but somehow they always end up voting Democratic.

    From the GSS, Puerto Ricans self-ID as follows (N = 579):

    Democrat — 46.5%
    Independent — 38.9%
    Republican — 11.9%
    Third party — 2.7%

    That’s on the way to being as Democrat-leaning as blacks and more Democrat-leaning than Hispanics in general.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS