More James Madison
Another quote to ponder from James Madison:
…[O]n a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.
The Founders were very aware of the tendency of majorities to stomp on the rights of minorities. We tend to think of “minorities” as meaning minority ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious groups. But that’s not what Madison meant. He meant any party or group that is out of power and up against a majority determined to keep it that way and take away some of its rights.
That’s why we’re a republic and not a democracy. The Democrats’ left flank – which is very large these days – is determined to make us a democracy, however, in the sense of abolishing the filibuster so that a bare majority can do its will, and in terms of abolishing the Electoral College.
For most of the 20th Century it used to be that major legislation that affected people’s lives – such as Obamacare – was not passed by razor-thin margins. Either one party had an overwhelming majority that really did constitute a mandate, or if the majority wasn’t so huge then both parties knew that it was good if both majority and minority parties were in some sort of basic agreement about any large overhaul in the system. Civil Rights, Social Security, Medicare, all had significant bipartisan approval.
But now, the Democrats are willing to exercise a tyranny of the majority even when the country is divided quite equally. The present Democrat majority is barely that. They know they are poised on the edge of losing that majority in the future, and it’s threatening, and so they want to seize power and consolidate it and extend it while they can, in any way they can. Obviously, if there was significant cheating in the election, that would be one way. But even without that, there are the court-packing proposals, support for illegal immigration and ultimate citizenship, and plans to give DC and Puerto Rico statehood. It’s all part of the same plan and the same goal, a path to permanent power not through persuasion but through other means.
Long long long ago, I used to think that the names of the parties – Democrats and Republicans – were somewhat arbitrary. They are not.
This is why the Constitution constrains both democratic and committee politics. That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one.
Irs. Emergency income tax. Pop vote for senators. Fed reserve. This is a republic?
Not divided even
70 30
“It’s all part of the same plan and the same goal, a path to permanent power not through persuasion but through other means.” neo
Attempting to attain permanent power through ‘other’ means ensures opposition by ‘other’ means. The less persuasion, the fiercer the opposition.
Playing with fire inevitably leads to getting burned.
Great post. Madison is YUGE, standing out even amongst that dazzling constellation of founding geniuses.
What an extraordinary group of political and moral thinkers.
And what an irony it is that it’s Trump who with unbending resolve—and with courageous, clear-sighted and “can-do” assistants—is there to lead us to RISK ALL for the country’s sake. And for our own.
And for the generations to come….
Trump out of office will be persecuted, hounded, financially ruined, as will his entire family by the Democrat NYC DA. My prediction and my fear. As is often said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
The evil that Democrats will do has not been seen since the KKK and lynchings, but it is coming. It is neo-Fascism.
Cicero:
I have been worried about a possible prosecution of Trump and his family, post-election, for a long time. And I also think that he cannot pardon himself in advance perhaps for legal reasons (I’m not sure if it’s legal) but mostly because it is on the state level (NY, I think) that he will be prosecuted. Presidential pardons cannot be issued at the state level.
Read Ymar’s comment above re Republic or lack thereof. I defy anyone to disagree. Just because Ymar speaks in tongues from time to time, not always wrong.
@Neo/Cicero:
It certainly makes the calculus more interesting.
The headcases who have been insanely ranting about Muh Putin for the last n years don’t seem to spend much time thinking about *why* Yeltsin *had* to pick Putin to succeed him.
Just because Ymar speaks in tongues from time to time, not always wrong.
Android phone ; )
And speaking in code is what keeps me non red flagged. You know, like Malachi Martin wrote a little “too much” and had his little wind accident. Windswept House! Down the stairs that is.
I love how Zaphod gets the references, like the Alt Right memes too.
I defy anyone to disagree.
Just like Trump, people tend to target my delivery method, while avoiding the substance, as they either don’t understand the substance or have no real argument against it.
I wrote “you humans are….” and the only thing people here had to say about that is that calling you humans, is an insult.
Is the statement true or false, do you agree or disagree… naw, that don’t matter. Humanity is an insult to itself, because it’s like battered wife syndrome.
We keep telling her that her problem is staying with the psychopath. She calls the cops… ON US, to protect her psychopath. Sighs.
Neo’s last sentence: “Long long long ago, I used to think that the names of the parties – Democrats and Republicans – were somewhat arbitrary. They are not.”
Yeah. Sometime over the past months I started noticing that Democrats and pretty much everyone left of center were constantly using the phrase “our democracy.” And I’ve noticed previously that when they all adopt a term like that something is up. Sometimes it’s just a sort of fad or a herd thing, frequently taken up from academia. (Like conversations “around” instead of
the normal “about.”)
But sometimes it’s clearly an attempt to control the discussion by controlling language, and I think this is one of those. A leftist friend of mine sort of out of the blue charged me recently with “fearing democracy.” I thought it was odd because I’m the one who defends the American system while he talks revolution. The sudden replacement of “equality” by “equity” was another instance, probably even more significant, as it involves a very definite intention.
Yeah. Sometime over the past months I started noticing that Democrats and pretty much everyone left of center were constantly using the phrase “our democracy.”
Disagree. Partisan Democrats have no interest procedural democracy. ‘Our democracy’ means ‘we get what we want’.
By the way, be aware (if you aren’t already) that the perfectly factual, perfectly sensible, well-informed statement that “this is a Republic, not a Democracy” is now, apparently, a sign that you’re a raaaaaaaacist.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/republic-democracy-mike-lee-astra-taylor.html
Neither the author of the article, nor the twit he’s interviewing, seem aware that this simple assertion is not a recent obsession of mean, nasty right-wingers but is, instead, a recurrent warning of American statesmen in every generation from the founding until now…and they themselves learned the importance of the distinction from Burke, from Locke, from Montesquieu, and so on back.
So: Par for the course: Left-wingers are ignorant of the history of their own society and civilization.
Everybody here already knows that, and also that they’re likely to be called raaaaacist on every imaginable pretext. I just thought I’d warn you folks, if you weren’t already aware, that referring to the Republic as a “republic” is now one of their stock pretexts.
Great, muscular piece Neo!!
Reminds me, always, of (I rhink) Ben Franklin’s comparison of Democracy and Liberty:
Democracy is 2-wolves and a sheep sitting down for supper.
And…
Liberty is the sheep coming to the table fully armed and ready to contest the meal.
Thank God for our Great Founders and our utterly unique gift of LIBERTY.
Referring to the US as a “democracy” goes back at least to World War 2: see Churchill and FDR and all their references to the “Western democracies” against Hitler.
Bryan (11/13: 9:21pm):
By the 20th century the term was (and is) commonly used for our Federal Republic.
“EQUALITY” is what the Left uses constantly and applies to what they’re perpetually after. Ie “Whims of the mob.”
That’s why they want an unprecedented expansion of the number of members of Scotus and other cons like DC statehood.
Thank God for our Founders knowledge of human nature and rule by Whim.
Cicero–that “lock her up” chant wasn’t real well advised, huh?
Mark:
it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. Hillary in orange sings the blues. Still not your president.
Look–caping for the “lock her up” guy and then being all afraid of trump being locked up seems a bit twee, no?
They will lock you up too for less. Making lists and all that. Not that the fat lady did anything illegal; “At this point what difference does it make.”
IDK–I think either you’re for investigating and locking everyone up . . . or no one? And I’d look to the guy who started it for guidance.
Progressives (ACAB = All Commies Are Bastards) are making lists individuals to be “dealt with” for supporting President Trump or working in the Trump administration. Those are your comrades. They will come for you too. It’s a feature. Read some history.
I know my history cold and I don’t think you’re even close to right. But I was talking to Cicero who was worried about trump and fam going to jail. I think if you’re gonna sweat that, maybe backing the “lock her up!” guy wasn’t such a great idea?
Mark:
Hillary Clinton is likely to have committed a crime involving her server while in office, and that alleged crime was uncovered not by Trump but during the Obama administration. It was also during the Obama administration that she was let off the hook by the invention and addition of an “intent” element to the crime where none existed in the statute.
The “lock her up” movement originally referred to that crime involving her server. It was chanted by a some of Trump’s supporters in 2016, not by Trump. It was in 2020 – after the full perfidy of Clinton’s participation and leadership in the coup against Trump, and the obvious fact that his opponents want to lock him up once he leaves office, was revealed – that Trump said he agrees that Clinton should be locked up for the Russiagate hoax/coup.
Note also that Trump made no move to actually lock Clinton up during his administration. I believe that if the left is able to gather, by hook or by crook, even the bare minimum of evidence of any sort of Trump wrongdoing whatsoever, they will indict and try him or some member of his family.
So was she guilty or wasn’t she?
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone showed up here defending the use of a non-secure, private server while serving as Sec. of State. (Yes, we know she also had a foundation to run on the side. Or maybe it was the Sec. of State gig that was being run on the side…. Who knows?)
She did have the “bad luck” of holding in the highest esteem a partner who happened to be married to a loser with a weakness for pornography in connection with underage girls. Fortunately for Hillary, all fears of being held responsible for any of that felonious activity were put to rest by certain Obama administration officials who decided that pursuing any “Clintons will be Clintons” shenanigans was not going to be on the agenda, setting the stage for a certain surreptitious, if not terribly dramatic, tarmac rendezvous on a remote area of a small-city airport.
Thank the powers that be for grandchildren….
Neo: I used to think a lot more of you.
1. Trump agrees 100% with the chants. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/521436-trump-says-he-agrees-100-percent-with-lock-her-up-chants-about
Not to mention the fact that he led them at numerous rallies (and also has led “Lock Him Up”) chants. For you to be worried about someone getting locked up now is . . . uhm . . . not great.
2. The crime she committed requires either intent or gross negligence on her part. The FBI investigation and finding was that there was not the level of negligence required. I’m sorry–it was investigated and it didn’t go the way you wanted.
3. You know as well as I do that “Russia gate” isn’t a hoax. We have Mueller and the Senate Bipartisan report showing that Russia *did* interfere on behalf of Trump both in the primaries and the general election.
We know that they hacked the DNC servers and Podesta’s emails.
We know that Manafort and Stone had contacts with Russia related people while working for Trump.
We *don’t* have evidence of a specific deal–but what “everyone thinks happened” is clearly what happened.
4. If Trump goes down it’ll likely be for his taxes. Maybe there’s a reason he doesn’t want them revealed beyond just wanting his privacy.
Oh look! It’s a hoaxer.
As such, NONE of his “moral” judgments ought to be taken with any seriousness.
Revealed his hand a bit on the late side and wasted everyone’s time.
Appreciate the honesty! Just wish it came a lot sooner..but then he must have realized that no one—here, at least—would take him seriously.
Well, sure–I mean, I believe the Manafort Report and the Bipartisan Senate Intel document. If you don’t? Well, that’s on you.
Mark, a purveyor of cold history and bovine excrement. James Comey made up the intent clause to allow Hillary (still not your president) to skate. You forgot that Markey Mark? What else do “we know?” Mueller – LOL LOL LOL. Mr. Mueller – infamous for “not my purview?”
Trump Accountability Project ring any bells with you Markey Mark? What a tool.
Mark is at a troll level bellow even lower than our esteemed Montage. But Mark is concerned for our credibility. He used to think. LOL
If you want to believe things that just happen not to be true, it’s certainly your right.
You can even call yourself a person “who knows [his] history cold”.
And you probably even believe it.
It’s a free country. (Though for how much longer, given the people you likely support, is certainly a pressing question.)
Well, what have I said that’s wrong? I mean–if you don’t believe the Mueller Report then was Trump exonerated? If you don’t believe the Senate Intel Committee, why not?
What do you disagree with? What version of events do you believe?
And I know about the Trump Accountability Project–and I’m not real impressed. The people who come out of the Trump administration will have trouble in real life without–and it won’t do anything anyway (and it’s no different than any number of people yelling about boycotting Starbucks because of ‘Happy Holidays.’). Sorry, I know ur dooming–but I’m not impressed.
“…cold…” Hope this very tiny tip of the iceberg “helps”. Very much doubt that it will.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-didnt-need-cia-warn-about-clintons-russia-dirty
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/mueller-gathered-evidence-dnc-clinton-dirty-trick-russia
https://justthenews.com/government/us-intel-declassify-more-evidence-showing-why-fbi-russia-probe-was-broken-start
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/senate-intelligence-report-finds-no-russia-collusion-fbi-handling-probe
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/cia-conduct-during-russia-assessment-may-be-next
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/monammysterious-destruction-evidence-related-steeles
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/next-declassification-could-flip-russia-collusion
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-spreadsheet-exposed-folly-steele-dossier-claims
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/state-officials-viewed-steele-intel-reports-flaky
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/bruce-ohr-retires-doj-after-informed-disciplinary
https://justthenews.com/podcasts/john-solomon-reports/journalist-lee-smith-russiagate-and-biden-scandal
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/plot
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/james-comeys-clueless-routine-russia-probe-exposes-fbi
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/permanent-coup-just-mueller-probe-fizzles-anti-trump
https://justthenews.com/podcasts/john-solomon-reports/carter-page-wrongly-accused
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/bringing-first-russiagate-charge-durham-hints-other
… You know Durham just closed out without any indictments or anything, right?
… I clicked on one link and saw John Solomon. You know–the one that The Hill had to back off on, because he was so full of shit?
I’m not even remotely impressed by this either.
Mark so sad, Mueller found squat and couldn’t remember what was in his purview. Hillary is still not your president. We don’t need no stinking lists ….. Such a tool. Maybe you belived all the walls were closing in too?
No? No. Mueller made the point that Russia was working to get Trump elected (remember that dossier thing? I believe it was in there?). The Senate report documents the multiple meetings between team Trump and Russians.
As someone who served in the military, the love of the Kremlin for Trump would be enough to put me off him–even if he hadn’t done things like betraying the Kurds or pulling us out so fast to give Russia our base that we had to bomb our own material.
But that’s just me being a patriot.
Mark:
Do you realize that your statement that Trump agrees “100% with the chants” links to the exact same story I linked to in the comment I wrote addressing you at 3:56 PM today? Did you even read what I wrote in that comment? The point I made in that comment was that in 2016, when the chants were only about her server, he didn’t join in. But in 2020 (that’s where I put the link), Trump said he agreed with the chants because by then he knew that Clinton and the others had been behind the Russiagate coup, and he also know they would like to lock him up for a manufactured crime.
Also, if you want anyone to think you are as smart as you seem to think you are, I suggest you read more carefully. I also suggest that you drop the pretend-misunderstanding of what I and others mean by “Russiagate.” I do not mean the paltry and exaggerated amount of actual interfering the Russians did, which was about what they always do. I mean the cooked-up poorly-sourced Steele dossier, the repeated lying FISA warrants, the accusations that Trump was a Russian agent, and all the rest that has been revealed to anyone paying a particle of attention – the attempted coup against Trump not by the Russians but by Americans with the help of Russian disinformation cooked up in part by Hillary Clinton and her people.
This is the post I wrote and the subject of intent and/or gross negligence in Clinton’s crimes. It goes into the question in some detail.
Lastly, to prosecute an ex-president for some sort of tax evasion would be an unprecedented move and rightly seen as a vindictive prosecution or worse. What’s more, I doubt they’ll find anything, because Trump has been comprehensively audited for many many years, long before he became president. But the pursuit will cause him to spend a ton of money defending himself. That’s part of the left’s plan. I also expect that the approach of the left might be more likely to involve hounding his relatives.
Mark, being a veteran doesn’t provide cover for being “a dumb bastard” to quote Joe Biden. As evident by your citing the infamous dossier. What a hudge tool you prove to be. LOL
Neo: “Donald Trump told supporters in Colorado on Friday that he is “starting to agree” with the “Lock Her Up” chants frequently directed at Hillary Clinton. “We’re running against a person that was just accused of being negligent, of being others, and of lying, lying,” Trump said during the rally in Colorado Springs. “How do you lie to the FBI and now you’re running for president?” he shouted, prompting “Lock Her Up” cheers from the crowd. ”
This is from 2017.
The Russian interference was dropping the Podesta / DNC emails the day the Access Hollywood tape came out. I’m sorry–that’s not nothing: that’s substantial.
Trump has been fighting tooth and nail to keep his taxes under cover. It wouldn’t surprise me if more than an audit is being done here (comparing what he told investors about the valuation of his buildings vs. what he told the IRS?).
But in any event, as you can see above, he’s the “Lock Her Up” candidate and now you’re concerned about him being locked up? It’s not a good look.
Maybe speak out about the lockin’ up before the leopard goes after the face of someone you like?
Mark:
As for that “Russia was working to get Trump elected” thing – Russia was working to sow discord, which it certainly accomplished. And recently this has come out:
Trump has been far harder on Russia than the Obama administration or Clinton ever were.
Also, you say “I used to think a lot more of you.” Well, if you did you certainly kept mum about it, because today is the very first time you’ve ever commented here.
You can just thank me for my service and shut up, om. If you think there’s a problem with what I’m saying, let me know.
Should we betray our allies? You’re okay with that? (clearly, yes).
Why would I thank a troll? Like I said, if you are a veteran that doesn’t mean squat since your arguments are what squatting leaves behind. I can claim to be an astronaut, so believe what I say, (even though I am not). It seems you are really are a dog on this internet. So bark some more Markey Mark.
There is a place for Senior Pentagon employees who don’t or won’t follow orders from the President of the US. Unemployment. Lt. Col. Vindman, Mad Dog Mattis, and this weeks Pentagon Prince come to mind. Thank them for their squatting on the Constitution Markey.
Well, Neo–I’m not convinced:
“Watts told Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “in my opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these measures.” Following the hearing, Watts told reporters, that the Russian activities were combined in the form of “pumping up Trump while tamping down the others,” and specifically identified Rubio, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Jeb Bush.”
In fact, I’m kind of the opposite of convinced: Grenell’s not an unbiased observer and it’s clear that Trump is the friendliest of all possible candidates.
om–when your list of horrible military people includes Mad Dog, I think you may be close to understanding why Trump’s share of the military vote is so low.
Mark:
I’m not writing to convince you. I refer you to this.
Mark:
I’m not obligated to thank you for anything. ACAB, All Commies Are Bastards. Yes there are commies in the military and probably some commie “veterans” too.
Mark:
Mad Dog Mattis got fired by multiple administrations, he has a problem following orders it seemed IIRC. He was a big disappointment.
Neo, I’m just saying I find your certainty unsupported. I think it’s clear to anyone paying attention that Russia preferred Trump for a variety of reasons and hanging everything on Grenell is weak and I suspect you know it.
The idea that you are sucked into the voter-fraud thing was unexpected for me–but if you are making excuses for Russia interfering in our election (releasing the hacked emails the same day as Access Hollywood–and I suspect you weren’t a fan of “grab them by the pussy *at the time*) then I suppose you have made peace with your critical nature on this.
om: there’s a reason why the military turned away from Trump this cycle–because of military standards the military attitude.
You aren’t going to understand that–but one of the poll watchers based their fraud claim on it:
“Although I cannot provide specific numbers or names, I can estimate that at least 80% of the military ballots I saw were straight ticket Democrat or simply had Joe Biden’s name filled in on them.”
Mark …
“If you think there’s a problem with what I’m saying, let me know.”
Maybe “lock her up” was the wrong chant. It should have been “give her day in court!” But Comey decided no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring this case forward. Funny these same “reasonable prosecutors” have brought cases with far less evidence and handily won them which ended in those people being locked up.
Mark:
Moscow preferred Russia? After Hillary “reset” and Obama “flexibility after the election.” How much other history do you have down “cold?” What a tool. LOL
She’s still not your president.
So a suspect military ballot was marked for Biden straight ticket. Fraudulent military voters vote Democrat. Sounds right.
jack: Re-try her in court would’ve been a better position.
But, look: if your guy is ginning up his crowds with a “lock her up!” chant (or “lock him up!”)–then I think you don’t get to hold your hand to your forehead crying about the possibility of Trump being subjected to legal scrutiny.
om, I get that you’re upset. I understand it. In the primary, I voted for Kaisch in a closed primary and I’m not real upset that Hillary isn’t my president.
But just about anything would be better than Trump and at one point most of the bright people here knew that.
Kasich? LOL, LOL, LOL. The ultimate of tooldom. You haven’t been here very long it seems. A troll late to the party.
Mark:
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I am actually agnostic about voter fraud. I have stated many times that in this election (a) there was the relaxation of rules (signatures, etc.) and expansion of less-secure mail in voting (not just absentee, but automatically mailed ballots or ballot requests to all on faulty voter lists) to such an extent that suspicions of fraud are widespread and exist independently for good reason no matter what amount of fraud is ever discovered; and (b) all the evidence of fraud must be looked at in a timely fashion and evaluated in court.
I actually think it’s highly difficult to prove to a court of law that there was enough fraud to change the outcome of a nationwide election, even if the fraud happens. I have maintained that we don’t know at this point if that extent of fraud happened, and that we may never know.
And merely stating something does not make it so, although it is a favorite ploy of trolls. No, it’s not the least bit clear that Russia preferred Trump “for a variety of reasons,” and yes, I find Grennell to be a lot more trustworthy on the subject than the abominable and Trump-hating Brennan.
As for military ballots, if someone actually did see them coming in to the tune of 80% for Biden, that would be much at variance with polls, the most recent of which had active military 43% for Biden to 37% for Trump.
Mark …
“Trump being subjected to legal scrutiny.”
Trump has been under legal scrutiny for 4 years . He’s a big boy and I’m sure will he’ll be fine.
Neo: if you think the vote in PA is “so mixed up that it would be impossible to verify anything” then I’m afraid that reading comp shows what I’m talking about.
The PA vote isn’t so bad that no one can verify anything–it’s the opposite.
Hi Mark,
Given the basic economic situation and employment records set under the Administration’s watch and influence prior to the Covid shutdowns; given the fruitful peace initiatives in the Middle East; the Administration’s Supreme Court picks, the Administration’s trade agreement re-negotiations and …
Well, the litany of objective positives during the Trump Administration is well known and has been repeatedly presented here, so I’ll just ask:
What and who is that “anything” that you as a disappointed Kaisich fan would have preferred to that; and on what projected basis?
Mark:
Your reading comprehension failure today has meant that, among other things, you thought I was ignoring an article that I had actually linked to.
As far as the PA results go – I knew even before the election that the rules there had been relaxed to the point that results could never be verified to my satisfaction, although of course the state was likely to declare them official. So yes, it was indeed that mixed-up in PA regarding the mail-in voting – almost certainly impossible to either prove or disprove fraud. The rules in place were obviously grossly inadequate even before the voting began – in addition, of course, to the things that are alleged to have happened when counting the votes later on.
Signature authentication or lack thereof, postmark not necessary, those are just two of the many things that have paved the way for deep suspicions of fraud, suspicions that probably cannot be proven or disproven ex post facto, once the envelopes have been separated from the ballots, a practice which I have read automatically occurs.
Mark:
As a “veteran” you might understand this: your statements pin you down, fix your positions, and then the artillery (Neo, DNW, and others) fire for effect. Kaboom, air bursts, HE, WP. Not pretty.
Neo–that’s not true (the stuff about PA). And I’m providing you with evidence that your position about Trump deciding to “join” Lock-Her-Up is wrong.
(he was in favor in 2017 for the FBI stuff).
So, sorry: no. I did read quickly over your nuance–but that’s because I knew he’d been promoting locking up his political targets for quite a while.
as far as PA goes: no, they can never be vetted to your satisfaction because the vote didn’t go the way you wanted. The Trump campaign has had to drop its claims that nothing could be counted and gone with “well, some voters got to fix ballots with mistakes”–which is not an allegation of fraud.
Mark:
Oh, what I say about PA is false because you say so? No links? No specifics?
And you know that my opinion is based on what I want to be true?
Absolute BS. What I actually wanted to be true was that whoever won (and I absolutely hoped it would be Trump) would win in such a way that the results would be unequivocal and above suspicion. When, in the months leading up to the election, I read descriptions of what was being done to voting laws in the name of COVID protection, I knew that we were in big big trouble and that whether or not fraud would actually occur, there were plenty of grounds for the loser to believe the election was decided by fraud. And I believed that would be very bad for the country. So it’s not at all what I wanted.
And by the way, if Trump had won, I predicted that the Biden campaign would be mounting the same challenge to the results as Trump is doing now. And it is the legal right of any campaign to do so.
This will play out over the next few weeks. But we probably will never know the truth. And, because of the rule changes, I realized before the election ever occurred that this sort of brouhaha was likely to happen and that it was likely to be very bad for the country.
It’s not just PA, of course; here’s a description of the system that was put in place in Minnesota.
That’s before a person even takes into consideration all the sketchy things that are alleged to have occurred during the counting process, including of course the software programs used.
It’s false because they know who voted. They know who the votes were cast for. The only outstanding allegation was that some areas legally allowed voters to fix technical errors and some didn’t.
There’s a reason all y’all’s court cases got thrown out and Rudy makes a fool of himself constantly: because it’s bullshit.
In the case of the (dumb, esp. for PowerLine which used to be decent) post the ID number you send in can come from things like a tribal ID. It still has to be a valid form of ID.
The note at the bottom just means that whichever number you use to request (SSN) MUST match the one you use on your ballot.
See? Not a conspiracy and not the stupid fantasy PowerLine floats.
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/elections/documents/AB_instructions_nonregistered_2020.pdf
https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/other-ways-to-vote/privacy-notice-for-absentee-ballot-application/
Mark:
I’m not going to waste a lot more time dealing with you. But you are ignoring many opportunities for fraud that have already been stated, and once the envelopes are separated from the ballots, there is no way to tell which ballots were fraudulent if an investigation finds that fraud was committed. It is also illegal to get rid of observers.
My position is wait and see. They (Powell and Giuliani) may be alleging things that will not hold up, or they may be speaking the truth. It is too soon to tell. But there’s no reason to trust people who state that they know ahead of time that evidence doesn’t exist or that the evidence that does exist is worthless, without even knowing in detail what that evidence is.
Certainly there are ways to tell which ballots are fraudulent. Each ballot is explicitly tracked so that you can tell if it was cast correctly. The ballots remain (hence recounts).
Vote by mail is no more likely to result in fraud than other kinds of polling. I’m sorry.
Manju, Montage, and Mark – The Three Trolls.
I’ll agree you are sorry.
And also: the fact that Giuliani hasn’t lost credibility with you is sad. I wonder if the 2011 Neo would be up in arms about all the lies the GOP & right wing media is telling its base.
I imagine she would–but things have changed, I guess.
Mark:
The neo of now and then is exactly the same.
I don’t dismiss, nor do I believe, evidence based on the track record of anyone, left or right. Evidence is evidence, and it is either strong or weak on its own merits. I evaluate evidence by one standard, as though I was a member of a jury.
That said, before seeing the actual evidence a person must at least take into consideration the speaker’s track record in terms of whether his/her evidence has tended to hold up to scrutiny or not. In addition, sometimes evidence can be convincing without being legally convincing.
I have applied those rules, for example, to “meToo” type allegations, and I think I have been fair-minded in judging evidence by its quality rather than by the source, and certainly not solely by the source. Nor do I care which side the target is on. The standards are the same for me.
Giuliani’s evidence, and Sidney Powell’s, will stand and fall for me on its own merits. As for their previous reputations for veracity, her track record in the Flynn case – which is the part of her background with which I’m most familiar – is good. Giuliani presented compelling evidence, in my opinion, regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and its provenance – something that the Biden family never denied. On the other hand, the claims that it was Russian disinformation didn’t pass the smell test, and no evidence was even offered except for a note signed by 50 ex-intelligence people who most likely detest Trump, saying that they hadn’t seen the laptop nor anything connected with it but just had a hunch it was Russian disinformation.
Giuliani is a politician, and as such he sometimes is a rhetorical flame-thrower. He may be exaggerating here; he may not have the goods. I have not found him in the past to be especially untrustworthy, however, and certainly would have no reason to dismiss what he says out of hand. Time will tell, and although the courts may not come through in terms of overturning the election (I happen to think it VERY unlikely they would ever do that), I look forward to hearing more about the evidence and then will make my own decision about its veracity.
om:
Yes, they all have “M” names. I see no evidence that they are all the same person. But they certainly have a similar m.o..
Neo – Everyone thinks they do that. I see someone who left the Democrats because of the lies and now cleaves to a party that says with a straight face that Trump’s inaugural crowd was bigger than Obama’s.
You dismiss the idea of the Hunter Laptop being a set up–while ignoring the fact that it says nothing material about Joe Biden (and that Rudy’s story about how he got it is ridiculous). (Note: I assume the emails are real. I think someone fed them to Rudy and see no reason to believe his story is true on the face of it).
You watch Trump ask about an “Email server” in Ukraine–a ludicrous request that makes less and less sense the longer you think about it–and instead of being insulted that your party thinks so little of you, you want more.
Can you even explain the server Trump thought he was asking for? In anything more than cursory detail? I assume you cannot–because to be able to explain it is to see through the nonsense.
I don’t think you’re the same person. The GOP certainly isn’t the same.
He’s sucking all of us into his fantasy world.
(I fell for it, too. The “interest”, the “earnestness”, the “concern”—indeed, “so sad” is really a terrific line! Good job, Mark!)
But time to cut bait, I’m afraid….
(Still, at least he’s enjoying himself, I suppose, “pursuing happiness”, etc. Well, good for him!)
Mark weeps for the GOP and for our souls too. He is concerned I’m sure. Oh for the day when Kasich was a contender. But Hilary is still not his president. 🙂