1960 and 2020 Elections

Post by Mark
Off-topic, but I thought readers of the newsgroup might be interested in
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/high-stakes-whispers-of-fraud-are-we-headed-for-another-election-of-1960/

I don't know if the Democrats are cheating or not but why are they acting
like they are? Why are they not allowing Republican observers to watch the
vote count as required by law? In Nevada the Republicans have filed a
lawsuit claiming they have proof of votes being cast by dead people or
people who have moved out of state. If that is true, it should be easy
enough to verify. I was reading the about the safeguards to prevent voter
fraud but most of them rely on the integrity of the people running the
election. These are the same people who in Pennsylvania and Michigan are
not adhering to the law that allows observers from both parties to watch
the votes being counted. In Ohio where I live each board of election must
consist of two Democrats and two Republicans and the same holds true at
each precinct. Any attempt to rig the system would require collusion from
members of both parties. I don't know if this is typical around the
country. As I recall during the Florida recount, their count boards were
made up of three people with the party in power holding two of those three
seats. So far the courts have been reluctant to get involved and I don't
think they will unless there is hard evidence of voter fraud. If there is,
I don't know what the remedy might be. The Constitution empowers state
legislatures, not the courts, to have the final say in who the states'
electors will be. As I write this, Biden has moved ahead in both Georgia
and Pennsylvania so it looks unlikely that Trump is going to prevail in
the courts.

Mark

2020-11-11 02:12:04 UTC

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.

Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.

But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.

I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-13 03:29:36 UTC

Post by Mark

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.
Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.
But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.
I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Nonsense. The Republicans get billions of dollars from oil.

ajohnstone

2020-11-20 14:26:48 UTC

It would now be totally delusional to claim that Biden is not the
President-Elect.

But how much closer was the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 election with similar
claims of fraud yet Nixon accepted the result against advise of other
Republicans.

Kennedy won the national popular vote by 112,827, a margin of 0.17
percent. And absentee postal votes were crucial to both candidates.

In California Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes
when all of the voting precincts reported, but when the absentee ballots
were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win the state by
36,000 votes. Similarly, in Hawaii, it appeared as though Nixon had won
there (it was actually called for him), but in a recount, Kennedy was able
to come from behind and win the state by an extremely narrow margin of 115
votes.

Some Republican legislators believed that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois. Republicans tried and failed to
overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time, as well as in
nine other states. Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and
challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory. Nixon gave a speech three
days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.

How things change...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

Chuck Schuyler

2020-11-20 23:40:53 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
It would now be totally delusional to claim that Biden is not the
President-Elect.
But how much closer was the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 election with similar
claims of fraud yet Nixon accepted the result against advise of other
Republicans.
Kennedy won the national popular vote by 112,827, a margin of 0.17
percent. And absentee postal votes were crucial to both candidates.
In California Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes
when all of the voting precincts reported, but when the absentee ballots
were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win the state by
36,000 votes. Similarly, in Hawaii, it appeared as though Nixon had won
there (it was actually called for him), but in a recount, Kennedy was able
to come from behind and win the state by an extremely narrow margin of 115
votes.
Some Republican legislators believed that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois. Republicans tried and failed to
overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time, as well as in
nine other states. Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and
challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory. Nixon gave a speech three
days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.
How things change...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

There was a feeling between both parties decades ago that the game of
politics was played between the forty yard lines, to use a football
metaphor, and that BOTH parties were patriotic and loved this country and
wanted it safe from a Soviet nuclear attack, and so on. Socialism, tearing
down capitalism, destroying industries like the oil industry, packing the
courts, gun grabbing, a corporate media openly cheerleading for one
candidate over another and censoring its fellow citizens who dissent, and
on and on, would've NEVER been embraced by the party of JFK and Scoop
Jackson and Daniel Moynihan, etc.

The stakes are so much higher now because government wants to literally
interject itself into every business and every life, cradle-to-grave. Can
a party that considers all whites racist, and considers the country it
seeks to govern as being founded illegitimately, actually rule justly?

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-22 04:32:41 UTC

does anyone here rewnember the name of this newsgroup?
So last night the History Channel reran some of its old shows on
the JFK assassination.
Many of the clips shown were from just after the shots were fired.
In one clip spme "authority" said that there were 2 shooters,
a MAN and a WOMAN. Have you ever heard of that before?
Who do you think the woman was? I can't rememmber the name of the CIA's
woman assassin back then. Can you? Or was this an atttempt to be
politically correct long before the ERA and include a woman to balance
things?

Post by ajohnstone
Some Republican legislators believed that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois. Republicans tried and failed to
overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time, as well as in
nine other states. Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and
challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory. Nixon gave a speech three
days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.
How things change...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

There was a feeling between both parties decades ago that the game of
politics was played between the forty yard lines, to use a football
metaphor, and that BOTH parties were patriotic and loved this country and
wanted it safe from a Soviet nuclear attack, and so on. Socialism, tearing
down capitalism, destroying industries like the oil industry, packing the
courts, gun grabbing, a corporate media openly cheerleading for one
candidate over another and censoring its fellow citizens who dissent, and
on and on, would've NEVER been embraced by the party of JFK and Scoop
Jackson and Daniel Moynihan, etc.
The stakes are so much higher now because government wants to literally
interject itself into every business and every life, cradle-to-grave. Can
a party that considers all whites racist, and considers the country it
seeks to govern as being founded illegitimately, actually rule justly?

John Corbett

2020-11-23 01:21:05 UTC

There was a lot of misinformation spread in the immediate aftermath of the
shooting. News organizations in a hurry to get information out to the
public seemed to forget about good journalistic practices and began
reporting rumors. The one you mentioned is just one example. It was also
reported a Secret Service agent had been killed in the attack. The rifle
was variously described as a .30-30 Winchester, a British Enfield, and a
Japanese rifle. Some of these were before the rifle was even found.

It's typical for the History Channel to run assassination related
programming at this time of the year. I didn't even realize today was the
57th anniversary until I looked at the calendar.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-24 00:58:24 UTC

There was a lot of misinformation spread in the immediate aftermath of the
shooting. News organizations in a hurry to get information out to the
public seemed to forget about good journalistic practices and began
reporting rumors. The one you mentioned is just one example. It was also
reported a Secret Service agent had been killed in the attack. The rifle
was variously described as a .30-30 Winchester, a British Enfield, and a
Japanese rifle. Some of these were before the rifle was even found.
It's typical for the History Channel to run assassination related
programming at this time of the year. I didn't even realize today was the
57th anniversary until I looked at the calendar.

Ya think?

Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care? I waited
all day and all night and none of you guys was able to remember what
happened on November 22, 57 yeqrs ago? collective amnnesia or denial.
You'd rather focus your on making up bizsrre conspiracy theories that
Trump lost the election because of aliaens frm outer space using death
rays on the voting machines.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-21 01:04:07 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
It would now be totally delusional to claim that Biden is not the
President-Elect.

It is perfectly normal for Trump and his supporters to be delusional.

Post by ajohnstone
But how much closer was the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 election with similar
claims of fraud yet Nixon accepted the result against advise of other
Republicans.
Kennedy won the national popular vote by 112,827, a margin of 0.17
percent. And absentee postal votes were crucial to both candidates.
In California Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes
when all of the voting precincts reported, but when the absentee ballots
were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win the state by
36,000 votes. Similarly, in Hawaii, it appeared as though Nixon had won
there (it was actually called for him), but in a recount, Kennedy was able
to come from behind and win the state by an extremely narrow margin of 115
votes.
Some Republican legislators believed that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois. Republicans tried and failed to
overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time, as well as in
nine other states. Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and
challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory. Nixon gave a speech three
days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.
How things change...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

OK, but thy don't you tell the rest of the story?
Nixon wanted to challenge the election, but Eisenhower talked him out of
it. And YES there was vote tampering in Chicago and Texas.

John Corbett

2020-11-21 01:04:26 UTC

I look upon the court challenge to the election results as a Hail Mary
pass. It's an act of desperation but as we saw last Sunday, every once in
a while a Hail Mary pass connects. You try it on the off chance it will
succeed. Rudy Giuliani has made some fantastic allegations. If he actually
has proof of them, it could be a game changer. Of course fantastic claims
require fantastic evidence and I have yet to see that. I expect they will
lose in court, the current vote counts will be certified and Biden will
win the same 306 electoral votes Trump did in 2016 and in an eerily
similar manner, by winning three key states by razor thing margins. In
this case the three states are Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Had Biden
lost those three, the Electoral College would have finished in a 269-269
tie and Trump likely would have been reelected by the House of
Representatives since Republicans hold the edge in state delegations.

Post by ajohnstone
Kennedy won the national popular vote by 112,827, a margin of 0.17
percent. And absentee postal votes were crucial to both candidates.
In California Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes
when all of the voting precincts reported, but when the absentee ballots
were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win the state by
36,000 votes. Similarly, in Hawaii, it appeared as though Nixon had won
there (it was actually called for him), but in a recount, Kennedy was able
to come from behind and win the state by an extremely narrow margin of 115
votes.
Some Republican legislators believed that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud, especially in Texas and Illinois. Republicans tried and failed to
overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time, as well as in
nine other states. Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and
challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory. Nixon gave a speech three
days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.
How things change...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

A better parallel would be the 2000 election. Al Gore contested that for
over five weeks before the Supreme Court shot him down.

ajohnstone

2020-11-21 20:42:16 UTC

I was trying to keep the thread relevant to JFK topic.

Indeed i simplified the 1960 situation. Nixon was happy to use proxies for
challenging the election result.

"... the Supreme Court shot him down...."

A bit hyperbole there with the implication. A 5-4 decision so the SCOTUS
was evenly divided along partisan lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida

But in the end we are comparing apples and oranges. Gore had genuine cause
for legitimate appeals. Trump has provided no grounds whatsoever for any
legal challenge. And as was my point, it is delusional to claim Biden won
by fraud and that Trump actually won. Rather than defending the integrity
of America's electoral process, Trump and his neophytes have undermined it
with groundless allegations, that are at times increasingly bizarre.

We have many people on this forum who can understand conspiracy theories
concerning the assassination, hopefully they are not suspending these
critical faculties due to political bias in regard to this election.

Chuck Schuyler

2020-11-22 21:30:44 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
I was trying to keep the thread relevant to JFK topic.
Indeed i simplified the 1960 situation. Nixon was happy to use proxies for
challenging the election result.
"... the Supreme Court shot him down...."
A bit hyperbole there with the implication. A 5-4 decision so the SCOTUS
was evenly divided along partisan lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida
But in the end we are comparing apples and oranges. Gore had genuine cause
for legitimate appeals.

Says you.

Post by ajohnstone
Trump has provided no grounds whatsoever for any
legal challenge.

Absolutely disagree. Mailing out millions of ballots on the orders of a
judge without the approval of the state legislature (Pennsylvania) is
pretty solid grounds to contest those ballots; ballots that Republican
poll watchers were unable to view and check for integrity. That's one of
many solid points of contention.

Post by ajohnstone
And as was my point, it is delusional to claim Biden won
by fraud and that Trump actually won. Rather than defending the integrity
of America's electoral process, Trump and his neophytes have undermined it
with groundless allegations, that are at times increasingly bizarre.

Really? "Your side" spent four years complaining that Trump was
illegitimately elected. Democrat Stacy Abrams, defeated a few years ago in
her run for the Georgia governorship, STILL thinks she won and that the
election was fraudulent.

Post by ajohnstone
We have many people on this forum who can understand conspiracy theories
concerning the assassination, hopefully they are not suspending these
critical faculties due to political bias in regard to this election.

I think Trump should be able to press his case. Yes, there are some kooky
claims coming from Team Trump, but let's see what his team has. The
election will likely be certified on December 14 in Biden's favor and life
will go on.

Nixon could concede in an era where both parties agreed the United States
was exceptional. Today's Dems actively root against the country they seek
to rule and radically transform. The stakes are so much higher when one
side wants to spike the ball in the end zone and gets a tingly inside on
the idea of reeducation camps for Trump supporters and pursuing Trump out
of office with lawfare designed to break him for his wrongthink and
tweets. Just a few months ago, mainstream Dems were "wargaming" the
election with a plotline regarding breaking off California, Oregon and
Washington State into separate country, just like Dems did in 1861 when
forming the Confederate States of America. This is dangerous. I can't
imagine Dems or Republicans in the Nixon/Kennedy days coming up with
something that radical.

ajohnstone

2020-11-23 03:49:55 UTC

"Your side"

I have no horse in this race. As a Marxist, i am as much anti-Democratic
Party and anti-Biden as i am anti-Republican and anti-Trump. I can easily
offer evidence with scores of blog posts to that effect. I'm also a
foreign outsider looking in who can perhaps can see the wood clearer and
not only the trees.

Your reply and your rationale for holding these views reinforces my view
that those who hold that Trump has legitimate grounds for claiming victory
are utterly delusional, just as i said previously...

Gore's Florida's case was not challenging the foundations of the American
electoral system, with accusations of institutional vote-rigging and
fraud. Gore's grievances were based on technicalities. In any close
election re-counts are the norm. And sometimes even re-counts of the
re-counts. There was no accusations of criminal behavior unlike the
allegations being made now.

2016 is a distraction as is Stacy Abrams, mere red herrings.

And in contrast to formation of sovereign independent countries by various
states, the Republicans are campaigning to stop US Territories becoming
states or even mainland USA DC.

John Corbett

2020-11-23 13:04:02 UTC

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Your side"
I have no horse in this race. As a Marxist, i am as much anti-Democratic
Party and anti-Biden as i am anti-Republican and anti-Trump. I can easily
offer evidence with scores of blog posts to that effect. I'm also a
foreign outsider looking in who can perhaps can see the wood clearer and
not only the trees.
Your reply and your rationale for holding these views reinforces my view
that those who hold that Trump has legitimate grounds for claiming victory
are utterly delusional, just as i said previously...
Gore's Florida's case was not challenging the foundations of the American
electoral system, with accusations of institutional vote-rigging and
fraud. Gore's grievances were based on technicalities. In any close
election re-counts are the norm. And sometimes even re-counts of the
re-counts. There was no accusations of criminal behavior unlike the
allegations being made now.

While the main focus was on the recounts, there were grumblings from the
Democrats about illegal voter suppression (aren't there always) while
Republicans accused Democrats of bribing homeless people to go to the
polls with cigarettes and booze. Kathrine Harris was also accused of
engineering a Bush victory when all she really did was adhere strictly to
the letter of the law. Democrat appointed Florida Supreme Court justices
chose to intervene by a 4-3 vote and got trumped by Republican appointed
justices on the US Supreme Court 5-4. Watching democracy in action is akin
to seeing how sausage is made. You'd probably rather not know.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-25 03:17:21 UTC

While the main focus was on the recounts, there were grumblings from the
Democrats about illegal voter suppression (aren't there always) while

You aren't trying hard enough. Where are the aliens in your theory?

Post by John Corbett
Republicans accused Democrats of bribing homeless people to go to the
polls with cigarettes and booze. Kathrine Harris was also accused of
engineering a Bush victory when all she really did was adhere strictly to
the letter of the law. Democrat appointed Florida Supreme Court justices
chose to intervene by a 4-3 vote and got trumped by Republican appointed
justices on the US Supreme Court 5-4. Watching democracy in action is akin
to seeing how sausage is made. You'd probably rather not know.

Chuck Schuyler

2020-11-24 00:59:00 UTC

I said he should be allowed to press his case and that some of the Team
Trump claims are kooky. If that sounds delusional to you, well, I think
that's silly. Policies that affect the globe were decided by a few
thousand votes in 4 to 5 states, out of what...160,000,000 votes that were
cast? Let's hear what the evidence is.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Gore's Florida's case was not challenging the foundations of the American
electoral system, with accusations of institutional vote-rigging and
fraud. Gore's grievances were based on technicalities. In any close
election re-counts are the norm. And sometimes even re-counts of the
re-counts. There was no accusations of criminal behavior unlike the
allegations being made now.
2016 is a distraction as is Stacy Abrams, mere red herrings.
And in contrast to formation of sovereign independent countries by various
states, the Republicans are campaigning to stop US Territories becoming
states or even mainland USA DC.

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.

Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

ajohnstone

2020-11-25 03:18:18 UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

Another result to be ignored?

We held a referendum in Scotland 2014 for independence and it was the
majority will which prevailed (to remain part of the UK) But circumstances
change (Brexit) so there will be a new referendum.

A 2020 survey by International Policy Digest found that The majority of
Democrats showed support for statehood for both D.C. (61.8%) and Puerto
Rico (69.7%) while among Republicans, only 26.7% supported D.C. statehood
and 34.8% supported Puerto Rican statehood.

It is mere speculation but would have the Trump response be the same after
Hurricane Maria if Puerto Rico had been an actual state. But we have the
simplistic real estate logic of Trump - off-load liabilities and sell
Puerto Rico and instead buy assets as in Greenland.

No-one objected under the various individual state laws to the result
being double-checked but as someone said here, don't listen to what Trump
says but what he does, and that has been baseless litigation challenges
based on conspiracy theories and the kookiest of them has come from Trump
himself. And the evidence has spoken, the officials and all the federal
agencies involved in the electoral process have spoken.

As a Marxist, do you know what perhaps is the closest analogy to Trump is
in my view - the Bolshevik Lenin when he rejected the outcome of the
results of the Constituent Assembly in 1918 (look it up)

John Corbett

2020-11-26 01:05:39 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Another result to be ignored?
We held a referendum in Scotland 2014 for independence and it was the
majority will which prevailed (to remain part of the UK) But circumstances
change (Brexit) so there will be a new referendum.
A 2020 survey by International Policy Digest found that The majority of
Democrats showed support for statehood for both D.C. (61.8%) and Puerto
Rico (69.7%) while among Republicans, only 26.7% supported D.C. statehood
and 34.8% supported Puerto Rican statehood.
It is mere speculation but would have the Trump response be the same after
Hurricane Maria if Puerto Rico had been an actual state. But we have the
simplistic real estate logic of Trump - off-load liabilities and sell
Puerto Rico and instead buy assets as in Greenland.
No-one objected under the various individual state laws to the result
being double-checked but as someone said here, don't listen to what Trump
says but what he does, and that has been baseless litigation challenges
based on conspiracy theories and the kookiest of them has come from Trump
himself. And the evidence has spoken, the officials and all the federal
agencies involved in the electoral process have spoken.

One point. The federal government does not run elections. States do. We
don't have a presidential race. We have 51 presidential races. Each state
has its own quirks as to how they conduct them. Even within the states,
counties have their own way of conducting elections. My county went back
to paper ballots a few cycles ago. Franklin County, where the capital city
of Columbus is, used the old fashioned mechanical voting machines until
not to long ago. Some of the machines in use were over 100 years old
before they got retired. Only getting used twice a year they held up
pretty well. Most of the state now uses electronic machines but there is
no standardization as to which make is used.

One of the issues in the 2000 Florida recount was the various types of
voting there was by county. Three counties at the center of the recount
effort were Democrat strongholds and they used punch cards. This gave us
new terms such as hanging chads and dimpled chads and how such punch card
ballots should be counted. It was either Palm Beach or Broward County that
gave us the butterfly ballot which Democrats allege caused a lot of Gore
voters to mistakenly cast their vote for Pat Buchannan. I don't know how
much validity there was to that claim but it was a Democrat member of the
county election board that designed the butterfly ballot.

This year the issue became the mail in ballots and how secure such a
system is. Proponents claim there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud
but I'm not sure if there was it would be that easy to detect, especially
when observers are prevented from observing the vote count. There have
been claims of ballots cast by dead people, people who moved out of state,
and large lots of ballots all cast for Biden and no votes for any down
ballot candidates which would be highly suspicious if true. I haven't seen
the actual evidence for any of these charges so I don't know if they have
any validity or not. I've read about the safeguards that are in place but
almost all of them rely upon the integrity of the county election
officials. Forgive me if I don't have a lot of confidence in the Democrat
run big cities. I was a poll worker in my county for a number of elections
and gained some insight into how things work in Ohio. Every board of
elections has two Democrats and two Republicans. The same is true with
poll workers in each precinct. The county boards are responsible for
setting up the voting machines or the paper ballots and this is done with
both parties observing. I'm not sure about how the mail in ballots are
handled but I'm sure that too is done under the supervision of both
parties. I have confidence in how Ohio conducts its elections but this is
not the standard all across the country. I just don't know how stringent
the safeguards are from state to state.

Post by ajohnstone
As a Marxist, do you know what perhaps is the closest analogy to Trump
is in my view - the Bolshevik Lenin when he rejected the outcome of the
results of the Constituent Assembly in 1918 (look it up)

Trump has not rejected the outcome, he has contested it just as Gore
contested it in 2000. Both were completely within their rights to do so.
We have legal procedures in place for doing this. In 2008, Democrat Al
Franken contested the election of Republican Norm Coleman for the
Minnesota Senate seat.. Several recounts were conducted with different
winners being declared. It ended up going to the Minnesota Supreme Court
where Franken prevailed and he became the 60th Democrat senator giving
them a filibuster proof super majority which allowed them to pass
Obamacare without a single Republican vote. There is nothing illegal or
unethical about contesting the results of a close election. It is a very
common practice.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 23:39:58 UTC

But thy still have to obey the same rules.

Post by John Corbett
counties have their own way of conducting elections. My county went back
to paper ballots a few cycles ago. Franklin County, where the capital city
of Columbus is, used the old fashioned mechanical voting machines until
not to long ago. Some of the machines in use were over 100 years old
before they got retired. Only getting used twice a year they held up
pretty well. Most of the state now uses electronic machines but there is
no standardization as to which make is used.
One of the issues in the 2000 Florida recount was the various types of
voting there was by county. Three counties at the center of the recount
effort were Democrat strongholds and they used punch cards. This gave us
new terms such as hanging chads and dimpled chads and how such punch card
ballots should be counted. It was either Palm Beach or Broward County that
gave us the butterfly ballot which Democrats allege caused a lot of Gore
voters to mistakenly cast their vote for Pat Buchannan. I don't know how
much validity there was to that claim but it was a Democrat member of the
county election board that designed the butterfly ballot.

But I loved the hanging chads. One of my volleyball friends was named
Chad, so when he came into the gym I aould say:
How's it hanging Chad?

Post by John Corbett
This year the issue became the mail in ballots and how secure such a

Yeah, pretend it's something new that we had never heard about before,

Post by John Corbett
system is. Proponents claim there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud
but I'm not sure if there was it would be that easy to detect, especially

OK. but you're with a little fraud, aren't you, like billionaires bribing
Republicans.

Post by John Corbett
when observers are prevented from observing the vote count. There have
been claims of ballots cast by dead people, people who moved out of state,

What do you have against dead voting? They are citizens too.
Equal Rights for Zombies. As I explained to my friends one Zombie show
featured Zombies who were trained to do menial chores.
So you could put his arm on the lever and then tell him to pull it
down. I already told you that story about the little boy who was crying
because his father had been dead for 10 years and came home to vote for
LBJ, but didn't go see his some.

Post by John Corbett
and large lots of ballots all cast for Biden and no votes for any down
ballot candidates which would be highly suspicious if true. I haven't seen
the actual evidence for any of these charges so I don't know if they have
any validity or not. I've read about the safeguards that are in place but
almost all of them rely upon the integrity of the county election
officials. Forgive me if I don't have a lot of confidence in the Democrat
run big cities. I was a poll worker in my county for a number of elections
and gained some insight into how things work in Ohio. Every board of
elections has two Democrats and two Republicans. The same is true with
poll workers in each precinct. The county boards are responsible for
setting up the voting machines or the paper ballots and this is done with
both parties observing. I'm not sure about how the mail in ballots are
handled but I'm sure that too is done under the supervision of both
parties. I have confidence in how Ohio conducts its elections but this is
not the standard all across the country. I just don't know how stringent
the safeguards are from state to state.

Are you even old enough to remember why Nixon conceded the election to
JFK? Was it because he was a gentleman?

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 19:32:44 UTC

We here in the US also have to worry about ahat damage Trump can do behind
the scenes to destroy our country for his pal Putin. Watch Rachel for
details.

Chuck Schuyler

2020-11-27 21:19:54 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Another result to be ignored?

Not at all. Thanks for providing confirmation. Only two choices were
given, and in a non-binding resolution, just a little over 50% of the
population would like to "pursue" statehood, and this is on the heals of a
hurricane just 36 months ago that wiped out much of the island's
electricity grid and led to 20K people per month in the aftermath of the
storm relocating to the USA.

Almost 93% of Hawaiians voted for statehood in 1959.

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25769#:~:text=Hawaii%E2%80%94a%20U.S.%20territory%20since,half%20of%20the%2020th%20century.

My "guess" is that if PR was allowed to vote TODAY on US statehood with
the additional choice of staying US territory, the territory choice would
narrowly prevail.

Post by ajohnstone
We held a referendum in Scotland 2014 for independence and it was the
majority will which prevailed (to remain part of the UK) But circumstances
change (Brexit) so there will be a new referendum.
A 2020 survey by International Policy Digest found that The majority of
Democrats showed support for statehood for both D.C. (61.8%) and Puerto
Rico (69.7%) while among Republicans, only 26.7% supported D.C. statehood
and 34.8% supported Puerto Rican statehood.

The Republicans are behaving in a principled way here.

Post by ajohnstone
It is mere speculation but would have the Trump response be the same after
Hurricane Maria if Puerto Rico had been an actual state. But we have the
simplistic real estate logic of Trump - off-load liabilities and sell
Puerto Rico and instead buy assets as in Greenland.

He freed up an additional 13 billion dollars in aid for PR in September.

Post by ajohnstone
No-one objected under the various individual state laws to the result
being double-checked but as someone said here, don't listen to what Trump
says but what he does, and that has been baseless litigation challenges
based on conspiracy theories and the kookiest of them has come from Trump
himself. And the evidence has spoken, the officials and all the federal
agencies involved in the electoral process have spoken.
As a Marxist, do you know what perhaps is the closest analogy to Trump is
in my view - the Bolshevik Lenin when he rejected the outcome of the
results of the Constituent Assembly in 1918 (look it up)

The Democrats still reject the results of the 2016 US election. Remember
the Russian collusion hoax?

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-29 01:59:51 UTC

Post by ajohnstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Another result to be ignored?

Not at all. Thanks for providing confirmation. Only two choices were
given, and in a non-binding resolution, just a little over 50% of the
population would like to "pursue" statehood, and this is on the heals of a
hurricane just 36 months ago that wiped out much of the island's
electricity grid and led to 20K people per month in the aftermath of the
storm relocating to the USA.
Almost 93% of Hawaiians voted for statehood in 1959.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25769#:~:text=Hawaii%E2%80%94a%20U.S.%20territory%20since,half%20of%20the%2020th%20century.
My "guess" is that if PR was allowed to vote TODAY on US statehood with
the additional choice of staying US territory, the territory choice would
narrowly prevail.

The Republicans are behaving in a principled way here.

He freed up an additional 13 billion dollars in aid for PR in September.

The Democrats still reject the results of the 2016 US election. Remember

No, the word is not reject. Thee word is overtumrned.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
the Russian collusion hoax?

No, YOU are a Hoax. If it wasn't real then how could Flynn be
convicted and why would Trump hsve to pardon him? YOU DON't pardon an
innocent man. Did Trump pardon you for waking up this morning?

John Corbett

2020-11-25 03:26:16 UTC

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

There has been serious talk about splitting California into three states
which would give them four additional senators (and electoral votes). I
think what is holding it back is that without LA in the south and SF in
the north, the center of the state would not be reliably Democrat. They
would have to figure out how to gerrymander the borders to create three
solid Democrat states.

I think it was the History Channel that used to run a series called How
the States Got Their Shapes. Originally there were only a few Rocky
Mountain territories that got chopped up into smaller states. Virginia
original encompassed what is now West Virginia and Kentucky. Maine was
once part of Massachusetts. It can be done but it takes broad consensus.

ajohnstone

2020-11-25 21:03:55 UTC

Post by John Corbett
There has been serious talk about splitting California into three states

Indeed much of it from billionaire Tim Draper but i fail to find any
serious talk from the Californian Democratic Party. And from what i can
see, Draper's personal politics are not sympathetic to Democratic Party
policies.

For a more informed view than my own though i did find this opinion.

https://verdict.justia.com/2018/04/19/california-voters-focus-voting-tim-drapers-cal-3-initiative

"... “Northern California” and
“California”—containing the Bay Area, and Los
Angeles, respectively—could continue to be counted on to deliver
for Democratic candidates their 39 or so (combined) electors.
But—and this is the crucial point—because the newly
created “Southern California” state could easily vote for
a Republican presidential candidate (as noted above, Mitt Romney almost
beat Barack Obama in 2012 in this region) and give its 20 or so electors
to a Republican, then Democrats would run a serious risk moving from a
55-0 advantage in California to something like 39-20 (a total of 59,
because the creation of two additional states would increase the electoral
college denominator by four, and every state gets two electors on account
of having two senators), a net advantage of only 19, considerably less
than half of the 55-electoral-vote edge the Dems currently enjoy. Even if
Democrats could hope to win “Southern California” from
time to time, Democrat party loyalists —both in California and in
DC—should be very reluctant to run the risk that inheres in Mr.
Draper’s proposal. There is very little upside, and considerable
downside, presented by CAL3 for Democrats when it comes to presidential
elections."

In 2011, it was a Republican official who proposed that 13 largely
conservative-leaning southern California counties break off to form their
own state.

But when the debate on the size and shape of the States are debated, isn't
it all just a grand plan of partisan gerry-mandering at the end off the
day, nothing to do with democracy really.

Regardless of party affiliation, one promising aspect of 2020 was the
record breaking number of voters for both the winner and the runner-up,
despite the pandemic and a background of civil unrest. Participation in
the process rather than voter suppression is the way to go if you seek a
healthy democracy.

John Corbett

2020-11-26 19:32:58 UTC

Post by ajohnstone

Post by John Corbett
There has been serious talk about splitting California into three states

Indeed much of it from billionaire Tim Draper but i fail to find any
serious talk from the Californian Democratic Party. And from what i can
see, Draper's personal politics are not sympathetic to Democratic Party
policies.
For a more informed view than my own though i did find this opinion.
https://verdict.justia.com/2018/04/19/california-voters-focus-voting-tim-drapers-cal-3-initiative
"... “Northern California” and
“California”—containing the Bay Area, and Los
Angeles, respectively—could continue to be counted on to deliver
for Democratic candidates their 39 or so (combined) electors.
But—and this is the crucial point—because the newly
created “Southern California” state could easily vote for
a Republican presidential candidate (as noted above, Mitt Romney almost
beat Barack Obama in 2012 in this region) and give its 20 or so electors
to a Republican, then Democrats would run a serious risk moving from a
55-0 advantage in California to something like 39-20 (a total of 59,
because the creation of two additional states would increase the electoral
college denominator by four, and every state gets two electors on account
of having two senators), a net advantage of only 19, considerably less
than half of the 55-electoral-vote edge the Dems currently enjoy. Even if
Democrats could hope to win “Southern California” from
time to time, Democrat party loyalists —both in California and in
DC—should be very reluctant to run the risk that inheres in Mr.
Draper’s proposal. There is very little upside, and considerable
downside, presented by CAL3 for Democrats when it comes to presidential
elections."

You beat me to it. I sent a post describing the Cal-3 plan but John hasn't
gotten to it yet. One thing you can count on is that whomever is proposing
this is doing it for partisan political purposes. Whether such a plan
would help Democrats or Republicans would depend on how the state is
carved up. Gerrymandering is something that is usually done in
congressional or state legislative districts but when a state is divided,
it could be done on a larger scale . Democrats could split up California
in a way that would guarantee there would be 6 likely Dem senators from
the 3 new states, while Republicans could draw the lines in way that would
given then a good chance to get one or two of the Senate seats and a
realistic chance of carrying one of the three Californias in a
presidential election. Since the Democrats now rule California, you can
count on any division being favorable to them. In order to split up the
state, California's legislature would have to vote in favor of it, a new
constitution proposed for each state, and then the proposal would have to
be sent to Congress for final approval by both Houses. My reading of the
Constitution tells me the President would not be involved in the process
unless I overlooked something.

You correctly identified the danger to Democrats of splitting the state.
It would run the risk of splitting their electors. This is the reason 48
of the 50 states opted for a winner take all system back in the 1800s. It
maximizes the states' influence in presidential elections. It's an
interesting academic discussion but I don't think the plan is going
anywhere. I read that the California Supreme Court ruled it c= ould not be
done by ballot initiative where it might have stood a chance. It's
something the legislature would have to push through and I doubt there is
the will to do that.

Most of the noise about splitting up California is now coming from
liberals who think it is unfair that their state is disproportionately
represented in both the Senate and the Electoral College. That's the way
it was intended. The Senate was not intended to be a representative body.
If it was it would be redundant to the House of Representatives. The
Senate was formed to give all states an equal say in one half of the
legislative branch. The formula for allocating electors created a hybrid
in which the larger states get more electors but proportionally the
smaller states get more. That too was intentional. It was one of many
compromises that was necessary to get all states to ratify the original
Constitution.

Post by ajohnstone
In 2011, it was a Republican official who proposed that 13 largely
conservative-leaning southern California counties break off to form their
own state.
But when the debate on the size and shape of the States are debated, isn't
it all just a grand plan of partisan gerrymandering at the end off the
day, nothing to do with democracy really.

That would be true if any modern day carving up of the states were to be
done but the reason for the size and shape of the original borders is much
more fascinating than that. The state of West Virginia was created by the
Civil War because most of the people on that side of the Blue Ridge were
against secession. In the 1800s, Ohio and Michigan fought a mostly
bloodless border war over a strip of land that includes Toledo. The joke
is that Michigan won the war and Ohio got stuck with Toledo. My old home
state of Nebraska had a decades long dispute with Iowa over small patch of
land. The Missouri River forms the border between the two states. In the
1850s, the river flooded and when it receded, it had cut a new channel
which isolated a small piece of Iowa on the west side of the Missouri.
Both states claimed it as their own. I think it was in the 1880s the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Iowa and now the village of Carter Lake,
Iowa is on the west side of the Missouri. Carter Lake is what is left of
the old channel of the Missouri.

Post by ajohnstone
Regardless of party affiliation, one promising aspect of 2020 was the
record breaking number of voters for both the winner and the runner-up,
despite the pandemic and a background of civil unrest. Participation in
the process rather than voter suppression is the way to go if you seek a
healthy democracy.

I'd rather see lower turnouts. It means fewer uninformed people are
casting ballots. People who stay informed are more likely to show up at
the polls. Let the stupid people stay home and wallow in their ignorance.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 23:40:02 UTC

Post by ajohnstone

Post by John Corbett
There has been serious talk about splitting California into three states

Indeed much of it from billionaire Tim Draper but i fail to find any

WHAT is his total worth today?
Giving one million when you have one trillion is trivial.

Post by ajohnstone
serious talk from the Californian Democratic Party. And from what i can
see, Draper's personal politics are not sympathetic to Democratic Party
policies.
For a more informed view than my own though i did find this opinion.
https://verdict.justia.com/2018/04/19/california-voters-focus-voting-tim-drapers-cal-3-initiative
"... “Northern California” and
“California”—containing the Bay Area, and Los
Angeles, respectively—could continue to be counted on to deliver
for Democratic candidates their 39 or so (combined) electors.
But—and this is the crucial point—because the newly
created “Southern California” state could easily vote for
a Republican presidential candidate (as noted above, Mitt Romney almost
beat Barack Obama in 2012 in this region) and give its 20 or so electors
to a Republican, then Democrats would run a serious risk moving from a
55-0 advantage in California to something like 39-20 (a total of 59,
because the creation of two additional states would increase the electoral
college denominator by four, and every state gets two electors on account
of having two senators), a net advantage of only 19, considerably less
than half of the 55-electoral-vote edge the Dems currently enjoy. Even if
Democrats could hope to win “Southern California” from
time to time, Democrat party loyalists —both in California and in
DC—should be very reluctant to run the risk that inheres in Mr.
Draper’s proposal. There is very little upside, and considerable
downside, presented by CAL3 for Democrats when it comes to presidential
elections."
In 2011, it was a Republican official who proposed that 13 largely
conservative-leaning southern California counties break off to form their
own state.
But when the debate on the size and shape of the States are debated, isn't
it all just a grand plan of partisan gerry-mandering at the end off the
day, nothing to do with democracy really.
Regardless of party affiliation, one promising aspect of 2020 was the
record breaking number of voters for both the winner and the runner-up,
despite the pandemic and a background of civil unrest. Participation in
the process rather than voter suppression is the way to go if you seek a
healthy democracy.

John Corbett

2020-11-26 01:05:51 UTC

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

Here is some information I found about what is called the Cal 3 Plan:

https://connectusfund.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-california-split-into-3-states#:~:text=Under%20the%20Cal%203%20plan%2C%20the%20decision%20to,lived%20across%20the%20border%20from%20where%20they%20worked.

Looks like they already have several plans for how to carve the state up.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Not sure which of these would be most beneficial to the Democrats which is
what this is all about. Under the first one, I'm not sure what the
political make up would be in what they label Southern California. It does
have San Diego which is a Democrat stronghold.

For this plan to pass, both houses of Congress and the California State
legislature would have to approve it and it would require amendments to
the California Constitution. Their Supreme Court has already ruled it
can't be done with a ballot initiative.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-25 03:26:37 UTC

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not

No, RepublicanS are against statehood for any territory which is heavily
Democratic.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just

Silly. StTES rights is what led to the Civil WAR.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for

You sAY that only because you are a Republican and you do not want to
see more Democratic states.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should

Nothing in permanent. Stop the fear mongering.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

If they could get away with it.

BT George

2020-11-25 21:03:15 UTC

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

Agreed. If they are going to play the game that way, perhaps Texas should
subdivide since it still has that right under its admittance treaty to the
US. Though with the HUUGE influx of Blue stater's the division would have
to be thought out since you might just free up the new states of "Trans
Pecos" (dominated Democrat-leaning by El Paso), "Central Texas" (dominated
by urban Dallas proper, Austin, and San Antonio), and "East Texas"
(dominated by urban Houston) to create 3 more Democratic states.

Brock

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 23:40:06 UTC

Post by BT George

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

Just curious, but do you think states should be split perfectly down the
middle? Vertical or horizontal? What about Gerrymandering? That's cute.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 19:32:49 UTC

As a foreigner, perhaps you don't understand how becoming a US state
actually works. Take Puerto Rico, for example. My wife is Puerto Rican and
a Spanish-first speaker. I have been to Puerto Rico, La Isla de Encanta,
MANY times and there is no big appetite to become a US state. They have
the best of both worlds: the gift of US citizenship and the right to
travel as a US citizen to the mainland and relocate, vacation, work, etc.
as a full American, but they do not pay federal taxes (in most cases) on
income earned in Puerto Rico. Traditionally, territories that wanted to
become US states heavily lobbied for statehood. (Hawaii and Alaska, most
recently.) You'll find about a third of the population of PR would like US
statehood, a third like being a territory with the advantages (friends
with benefits), and a third would like to be cut free and gain
independence. After hurricane Maria destroyed PR (and leveled my wife's
childhood home and left many of her relatives homeless), 20,000 people PER
MONTH left PR for Florida and other states. Puerto Ricans are not
lock-step Democrats, and the governor of the island endorsed Trump. In
fact, PR's who migrated to Florida in 2017 after the storm and
Cuban-Americans who understand the true cost of the socialism you adore
perhaps helped seal Florida for Republicans.
Republicans are against IMPOSING statehood on territories that do not

Silly. Republicans are against granting any statehood because then they
would lose the Senate and billions of dollars in dark money.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
fully embrace it. As far as DC statehood is concerned, the issue of state
sovereignty over the federal government comes into play. This is all just
a blatant power grab by Democrats to carve out a few new senate seats for
a permanent senate majority, and nothing else. Maybe Republicans should
carve up Tennessee or Texas into four additional states that will all vote
Republican.

Chuck Schuyler

2020-11-20 23:40:48 UTC

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.
Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.
But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.
I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Nonsense. The Republicans get billions of dollars from oil.

Democrats are getting more from "Big Oil" than Republicans.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/16/oil-gas-companies-election-donations-democrats-biden-chevron-exxon-mobil/

The Democrats have become the party of rich costal elites and managerial
technocrats/bureaucrats.

John Corbett

2020-11-21 20:42:26 UTC

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.
Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.
But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.
I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Nonsense. The Republicans get billions of dollars from oil.

Democrats are getting more from "Big Oil" than Republicans.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/16/oil-gas-companies-election-donations-democrats-biden-chevron-exxon-mobil/
The Democrats have become the party of rich costal elites and managerial
technocrats/bureaucrats.

It will be interesting to see how the radical left of the Democrat Party
reacts when they realize they've been played for suckers by the party's
establishment. They quietly gave their support to Joe Biden during the
general election and didn't make waves so as to not turn off moderate
voters. They expected after Biden's victory that he would embrace their
agenda in return. Now they are seeing Biden hire people from big oil
companies and they don't like it at all. They will quickly turn on Biden
if they don't get their way as surely as the French Revolution turned on
Robespierre. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the radicals call for
the invoking of the 25th Amendment with Kamala Harris as an eager
participant in a bloodless coup d'etat. I think one way or another, she
expects to be the 47th POTUS. The next two years could prove to be quite
entertaining.

ajohnstone

2020-11-22 21:29:54 UTC

The Democratic Party left appeared to share the same scenario as the
Republicans - that Biden would move to the left but many challenged that
view and opposed the lesser evil vote advocated by the sheep-dog liberals,
shouting wolf to get the fox elected. i can easily direct you to
innumerable articles by myself exposing the fallacy of the lesser evil
political case. He won't be creating a battle-ground that is easier for
the left to fight on.

Now that the lesser evil is elected to the Oval Office, and he picks his
appointees, we see no move to the left. Just a Obama Administration 2.0
Perhaps it will change. A few weeks and we will be able to tell.

So far the progressives in the Democratic Party have been side-lined
leading to disgruntled expressions of disapproval.

Will the disillusionment spark off a Democratic Party rebellion as you
suggest? Certainly not through Kamala Harris who doesn't have the
confidence of the Justice Democrats. If she fosters a 25th Amendment
challenge it will be with the support of the Democratic corporate DNC and
not with the sanction of any of the left. It would be seen as what it
would be - a personal power-grab. We will see soon if Sanders and Warren's
enthusiastic endorsement of Biden will gain them a place at the Cabinet
table in any meaningful government position. There is no left Third-Party
once you dismiss the DSA as simple sloganeers.

The scare-mongering and even red-baiting of Biden simply had no rational
foundation in his policies. Such campaigning should have died a death in
Harry Truman's time when he explained:

"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people
have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public
power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what
they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank
deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and
independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost
anything that helps all the people."

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-22 21:30:10 UTC

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.
Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.
But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.
I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Nonsense. The Republicans get billions of dollars from oil.

Democrats are getting more from "Big Oil" than Republicans.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/16/oil-gas-companies-election-donations-democrats-biden-chevron-exxon-mobil/
The Democrats have become the party of rich costal elites and managerial
technocrats/bureaucrats.

False. Both parties have extremists.
Nothing new.

Post by John Corbett
general election and didn't make waves so as to not turn off moderate
voters. They expected after Biden's victory that he would embrace their
agenda in return. Now they are seeing Biden hire people from big oil
companies and they don't like it at all. They will quickly turn on Biden
if they don't get their way as surely as the French Revolution turned on
Robespierre. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the radicals call for
the invoking of the 25th Amendment with Kamala Harris as an eager
participant in a bloodless coup d'etat. I think one way or another, she
expects to be the 47th POTUS. The next two years could prove to be quite
entertaining.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-22 04:32:45 UTC

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The alleged
Democratic Party prevention of Republican poll watchers from viewing the
process up close, as state laws require is a big one to me.
Either it happened or it didn't. Go to court, put people under oath and
get answers.
But I'm like you. I don't think the challenges are going to change the
outcome.
I do know this: The party that takes in millions in contributions from
liberal trial lawyers has no standing to tell Trump he shouldn't take
alleged blue state irregularities to court. Mark

Nonsense. The Republicans get billions of dollars from oil.

ever hear of the Koch brothers? You are making a false comparison,
equating millions with billions.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Democrats are getting more from "Big Oil" than Republicans.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/10/16/oil-gas-companies-election-donations-democrats-biden-chevron-exxon-mobil/
The Democrats have become the party of rich costal elites and managerial
technocrats/bureaucrats.

How come you always cite kook cites? Is that all you read?

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-23 01:21:25 UTC

Naturally, you wouldn't be interested in anything ON TOPIC.
You'd say JFK who?

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-23 01:21:28 UTC