billsfan89 Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Jaraxxus said: "misinformation" Do you have any proof that their information was accurate? Judicial Watch has an awful track record, the article I linked literally has quotes from direct sources. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Trump alleges that not only millions vote illegally BUT they all voted for one political party. He alleged it well before an election he won and when pressed on evidence he couldn't provide it. I have not seen a credible non-partisan report that voter fraud is as wide spread as Trump claimed and is only happening in one direction. I don't trust a self professed conservative group like judicial watch who has been proven to spread misinformation. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/481224-iowa-secretary-of-state-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter You may want to check the lawsuits Judicial Watch has won. The court decisions would be the proof.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 ...in this advanced age of technology, it is hard to believe a nationwide system cannot be rolled out, accurate, precise and real time results...problem is IMO that the "output is only as good as the input"......perhaps the honesty and integrity of those involved in the data collection comes into question (naw, NEVER-COUGH)......back to the "input"....fraudulent registrations, illegals, corpses, etc.....damn Russians.....no way would anyone in the US employed in that sector would do anything illegal to benefit the political preferences, right?..... Sincerely, Hanging Chad
Bob in Mich Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Do you have any proof that their information was accurate? Judicial Watch has an awful track record, the article I linked literally has quotes from direct sources. https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud Trump's own commission could not find all this claimed voter fraud From the article (AP) — The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday. Edited February 7, 2020 by Bob in Mich
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Why should there be affirmative action for a handful of states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a handful of others) Candidates in the general don't step foot in 38 states unless it is to attend private fund raisers behind closed doors. How can you rightfully call that a just system when so many are locked out from the voting process and being heard. A conservative in California has just as much a right to have their vote heard as a liberal in Alabama. I don't know how anyone can from a principled perspective argue for a system where a person who doesn't win the most votes wins an election. Other than it helps a political party you like what justification do you have for prioritizing certain states over the majority of others? I was being hyperbolic and it came off bad. I know the electoral college was structured as a compromise between a parliamentary system and a straight popular vote system in addition to having pragmatic concerns about the ability to actually conduct a massive count like that. erm, we do not live in a democracy 2
billsfan89 Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: You may want to check the lawsuits Judicial Watch has won. The court decisions would be the proof. I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: erm, we do not live in a democracy Go ahead and make a principled argument for a system of representative government where you give preferential treatment (aka affirmative action) to a small group of states and have a system where it is common for the person with the least amount of votes wins. If you like the system because it helps Republicans fine, support it on partisan lines but don't pretend you have any non-partisan justification for the system. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 Just now, billsfan89 said: I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. Do a subforum search on the word watch. That should get you to some of their wins and losses. Their website is going to be mostly wins. 1
Bray Wyatt Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: I am trying to find the percentage of lawsuits they have won (as a cursory search has turned up the fact that they sue a lot of people a lot of the time) and how many lawsuits they have won in regards to voter fraud. They have been involved in a lot of rather odious smears and lies from what I have seen. It doesn't seem like they are honest actors but rather a group looking to spread misinformation and clog up the government with lawsuits. Go ahead and make a principled argument for a system of representative government where you give preferential treatment (aka affirmative action) to a small group of states and have a system where it is common for the person with the least amount of votes wins. If you like the system because it helps Republicans fine, support it on partisan lines but don't pretend you have any non-partisan justification for the system. What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different?
billsfan89 Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: Do a subforum search on the word watch. That should get you to some of their wins and losses. Their website is going to be mostly wins. Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. Just now, Bray Wyatt said: What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different? I think you would see candidates focused on turnout all across the country. I think you would see more turnout in states like California and Texas where minority political beliefs would have their votes count equally as people in Florida. I think you would see less focus on policy for places like Ohio and Florida where both parties try and over favor them so that they can win elections. There are numerous positives to getting rid of the popular vote. 12 states soak up a majority of the focus on election night and that locks out the other 38. 1
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 35 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: You think this is honestly the case? Back in the day few people could code.
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. I missed part of your earlier post, soooo... JW Lies and smears!? They have been about the only entity that was able to take the Obama administration to court for paperwork and win. They do fight for FOIAs, against voter fraud, and have been pretty vigilant in getting the word out on both. Transparency and fairness seem to be their aim. 4
Bray Wyatt Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Given the nature of this board I think their wins would be overrepresented. I am trying to figure out if there is another source that has a better picture. I think you would see candidates focused on turnout all across the country. I think you would see more turnout in states like California and Texas where minority political beliefs would have their votes count equally as people in Florida. I think you would see less focus on policy for places like Ohio and Florida where both parties try and over favor them so that they can win elections. There are numerous positives to getting rid of the popular vote. 12 states soak up a majority of the focus on election night and that locks out the other 38. They would focus their campaign on the most populous states, which would just be the same ***** different toilet than what we got now. Our government was formed so that the most populous states wouldnt control what the smaller states did, hence the bicameral congress. The electoral college is another example of that. 1
/dev/null Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 That's what I love about Lefty's. All afraid that Trump will rule by executive fiat and set it up so he is always in power. Basically afraid of Trump doing exactly what they wish they could do but are afraid to admit it But if Trump or any other President tried to pull this, there's already a well documented legal response A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 4
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: The DNC data was stolen through a hack by the Russians. They then used wikileaks to release portions to the public at opportune moments to assist Trump's campaign, right? So, it was really stolen private (idk, is the DNC a corp) corp data. It may have revealed internal corruption at the DNC, but I don't think stealing and releasing corp information, even if revealing and interesting, should be sanctioned by us. Per V.I.P.S. it was determined that the speed of the supposed "hack" could not have been done over the internet and had to be done by a direct transfer of information. In other words someone downloaded that information directly from a computer onto an external drive. 4 2
/dev/null Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Per V.I.P.S. it was determined that the speed of the supposed "hack" could not have been done over the internet and had to be done by a direct transfer of information. In other words someone downloaded that information directly from a computer onto an external drive. And was subsequently killed in a botched robbery 3 1
reddogblitz Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: No actual comments or defense of the Trump nepotism? This blew my mind when I found out about it and still does. We have a nepotism law in this country for the President put in after the Kennedy administration but it doesn't apply in this case. Might be a good thing for Ds to do now that impeachment is over is to tighten up the law so this doesn't happen again. 1
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 18 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: What do you think would happen if we went to popular vote?? How would it be any different? The large states control the House while the smaller states have more of a say in the Senate in comparison to their population. The House was designed to represent the people while the Senate was designed to represent the states. 1
billsfan89 Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: They would focus their campaign on the most populous states, which would just be the same ***** different toilet than what we got now. Our government was formed so that the most populous states wouldnt control what the smaller states did, hence the bicameral congress. The electoral college is another example of that. Right now it isn' like the smaller states get better represented than the larger ones in the electoral college. North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Michigan and Florida (all key swing states) are states in the top 10 in terms of population. Other swing states like Virginia (12th), Minnesota (22nd) Wisconsin (20th) are well within the top half. The only smaller states that are in the swing states are Iowa (31st), Nevada (32nd) and New Hampshire (42nd.) So it isn't restoring power to the smaller states. You would see the national priorities shift in a major way if each state was given a say in the election. It would be completely different for our politics to get rid of preferring 12 states many of whom aren't small under represented states. 1
Bray Wyatt Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: The large states control the House while the smaller states have more of a say in the Senate in comparison to their population. The House was designed to represent the people while the Senate was designed to represent the states. Right, they came up with this as the compromise of equal representation vs population based. 1
3rdnlng Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: This blew my mind when I found out about it and still does. We have a nepotism law in this country for the President put in after the Kennedy administration but it doesn't apply in this case. Might be a good thing for Ds to do now that impeachment is over is to tighten up the law so this doesn't happen again. Nobody from the Trump family is getting paid. Trump obviously has great faith in Ivanka and Jered Kushner and the items they've worked on have either been successes or show promise. Any other family members have stuck to the political side.
Recommended Posts