Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[angrysoba]

"Your dad killed JFK, your wife's ugly, and you're a liar!"

"I'll have you know that that's not a nice thing to say. Anyway, how do you want me to help you subvert democracy again?"

 

[slyjoe]

Trump ally urges him to accept defeat in US vote

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called the president's legal team a "national embarrassment".

That is NOT a "national embarrassment". It is an embarrassment to Trump, Rudy, Powell, Ellis, and the Republican party.

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought the allegation was that there were more votes than there were registered voters (though the allegation is false).

Where is his evidence for more votes than people who voted ?

The only thing remotely like evidence for that comes from the Detroit districts that didn't "balance". As each voter comes in, they record that someone voted. At the end of the day, they count the number of ballots. The two should be equal. If they aren't, they are out of balance.

In the case of mail in ballots, they record that a ballot has been received. When they go to run the precinct through the tabulator, the number of ballots counted should equal the number of received ballots.

In many Detroit precincts, the two numbers didn't match, being off by 1 to 4 votes. The total discrepancies added up to a few hundred. One way that can occur for mail in ballots is that a person receiving the votes records a ballot from precinct 6. He is receiving ballots from multiple precincts, with numbered bins on the table. He accidentally puts the ballot in precinct 7's bin. Now precinct 6 has one fewer vote than it should have, and precinct 7 has one too many. And Trump tweets that in Detroit precincts, there were more votes than voters.

And who can tell what goes through Trump's mind? He is basically regurgitating partial facts, so the result doesn't look like what he's saying. He heard someone say that there are more votes than voters, and that makes a good tweet comment, so he spits it back up, partially digested.

 

[Meadmaker]

Absentee votes have long applied to people who are housebound. The term "absent" here means absent from the polling place, not from the state.

What has changed is an additional situation for which the absence is excused, but I reckon that mail-in votes during a pandemic can totally reasonably be called absentee, just as having a medical condition can allow an absentee ballot.

Terminology used varied from state to state this year. In Michigan, all votes that were not cast in person were called absentee ballots. Other states distinguished between an "absentee" ballot, versus a "mail in" ballot, and of course some states had "in person early voting" ballots. In Michigan, where I live, anything that wasn't cast in person at a polling place on election day was an absentee ballot.

 

[Delvo]

Scott Shapiro tweeted

Shameful that Ted Cruz won't speak up to defend Democracy.
It's not like we're asking him to defend his wife or father.

"Your dad killed JFK, your wife's ugly, and you're a liar!"

"I'll have you know that that's not a nice thing to say..."

Have any of the people who keep bizarrely coming back over & over & over again to this meme, as if insulting somebody is somehow a win and being insulted is somehow a loss, ever specified what kind of response Cruz should have given that would have made a different impression?

 

[Meadmaker]

He says that people were somehow duped into voting a different candidate by unsuspecting voters. You have to read all Trump tweets to speak Trumpese, or read it.

It's now questionable that you could gain anything more by reading his tweets. I've switched to my own name in Twitter, and will post less and less in 2021.

One thing that has happened in years past in some places, and which may very well have happened this year, on both sides of the aisle, is that election volunteers offer to go to nursing homes and help people fill out ballots. Sometimes, the voter is susceptible to suggestion in those cases, and it's not really clear that the final vote represents the genuine desire of the voter. Or that the voter actually knows it is an election year.

It happens. Depending on the laws of the state such things may or may not be legal. I'm sure it is always illegal to tell people how to fill out a ballot, but exactly how much "help" can be offered may vary from state to state.


Another thing I have read about is the charge that poll workers were seen telling people to fill out ballots for Biden. That's illegal. Poll workers are supposed to be completely neutral, and should provide instructions on how to vote, but never in a way that favors one candidate or another. I'm confident that what really happens is something like this.

Voter: (Confused) I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with this?
Worker: Well, if you want to vote a straight party ticket, you fill in the oval at the party preference ballot. That casts a vote for the candidate of all of that parties representatives in all races. Then, you need to choose a candidate for each race in the non-partisan section.
Voter: Huh? What do you mean?
Worker: Well, in some races, the candidates are not listed by party affiliation, so.....
Voter: I just want to get rid of Trump!
Worker: Fill in this oval.


I am also fairly confident that in some cases, a voter expressed approval in some way of Trump, and the tone of voice of the worker indicated some sort of disapproval, and the Republican poll watchers recorded this as bias. In other words, poll workers are human beings, and that offended some Republican sensibilities.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Have any of the people who keep bizarrely coming back over & over & over again to this meme, as if insulting somebody is somehow a win and being insulted is somehow a loss, ever specified what kind of response Cruz should have given that would have made a different impression?

There's a disconnect with the everyman.

It's one thing to stay cool and business like when discussing policy disagreements. Even hyperbole of where the policy leads and what kind of person promotes it.

Stoic composure starts to look odd when sustained in the face of vile slander about family members. People wonder if the person has a "human side."

ETA: I don't want someone who's "fire" is on a hair trigger. I do want to know they know how to pull the trigger at all.

 

[angrysoba]

Have any of the people who keep bizarrely coming back over & over & over again to this meme, as if insulting somebody is somehow a win and being insulted is somehow a loss, ever specified what kind of response Cruz should have given that would have made a different impression?

Yep! He could probably stop supporting Donald Trump's coup attempt. Would that be too much to ask?

ETA: Oh, I see that you snipped off the punchline and then said, "I don't get it!" when the very point of this is that his toadying up to Trump now is the complete disgrace.

 

[Paul2]

Trump is the Terminator of all Liars.

That’s WHAT he does.

That’s ALL he does.

I've quoted that line to unblinking confusion the vast majority of time; I'm SO glad to see someone else quote it. [sniff]

 

[phiwum]

Minnesota: Twins
Michigan: Tigers

Big difference there.

Oh, so now pgwenthold is claiming tigers can't have twins. Crazy!

 

[Minoosh]

So this forum has some conservative members who are not conspiracy-minded, and who I don't think are white supremacists, and who thought other members were Chicken Littles when it came to how much damage one man (Trump) could do to a democracy, and who as far as I can tell are not weighing in on the election threads. I wonder what they think now.

People who I used to think about as simply conservative have in many cases tipped their hands, but I'm a little naive about giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't spend much time on conspiracy or skepticism threads so I wasn't aware that they have dubious reputations, but then, I was shocked to read that the very bedrock of Trumpism was support from what I consider to be hate groups.

I'd really like to know how sane ISF conservatives think of Trump now but if they have commented I've missed it.

Today the drumbeat urging Trump to concede is getting louder meaning IMO he is going to see enemies at every turn. Perversely I hope he hangs in for a little longer so his position will be increasingly marginalized but now I'm reading that experts are concerned about the threat he poses to national security. Good luck with that, I'm cynically thinking - some people have been saying that for years. Now they know how it feels.

 

[phiwum]

That is NOT a "national embarrassment". It is an embarrassment to Trump, Rudy, Powell, Ellis, and the Republican party.

It's a national embarrassment that such a large percentage of voters (and also the population as a whole?) are buying into the nonsense. It's almost exclusively Republicans, so it's a bigger embarrassment for the party (had they any sense of shame left), but also for the nation.

It's also an embarrassment that such nonsense can lead to seriously detrimental effects like postponing the transition period in a moment of national crisis.

 

[phiwum]

Terminology used varied from state to state this year. In Michigan, all votes that were not cast in person were called absentee ballots. Other states distinguished between an "absentee" ballot, versus a "mail in" ballot, and of course some states had "in person early voting" ballots. In Michigan, where I live, anything that wasn't cast in person at a polling place on election day was an absentee ballot.

Totally fair point, but purely a matter of terminology and not substantive difference. (Not that you suggested otherwise.)

 

[acbytesla]

One thing that has happened in years past in some places, and which may very well have happened this year, on both sides of the aisle, is that election volunteers offer to go to nursing homes and help people fill out ballots. Sometimes, the voter is susceptible to suggestion in those cases, and it's not really clear that the final vote represents the genuine desire of the voter. Or that the voter actually knows it is an election year.

It happens. Depending on the laws of the state such things may or may not be legal. I'm sure it is always illegal to tell people how to fill out a ballot, but exactly how much "help" can be offered may vary from state to state.


Another thing I have read about is the charge that poll workers were seen telling people to fill out ballots for Biden. That's illegal. Poll workers are supposed to be completely neutral, and should provide instructions on how to vote, but never in a way that favors one candidate or another. I'm confident that what really happens is something like this.

Voter: (Confused) I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with this?
Worker: Well, if you want to vote a straight party ticket, you fill in the oval at the party preference ballot. That casts a vote for the candidate of all of that parties representatives in all races. Then, you need to choose a candidate for each race in the non-partisan section.
Voter: Huh? What do you mean?
Worker: Well, in some races, the candidates are not listed by party affiliation, so.....
Voter: I just want to get rid of Trump!
Worker: Fill in this oval.


I am also fairly confident that in some cases, a voter expressed approval in some way of Trump, and the tone of voice of the worker indicated some sort of disapproval, and the Republican poll watchers recorded this as bias. In other words, poll workers are human beings, and that offended some Republican sensibilities.

It really is impossible to verify this. It might happen. But this is really anecdotal.

 

[slyjoe]

It's a national embarrassment that such a large percentage of voters (and also the population as a whole?) are buying into the nonsense. It's almost exclusively Republicans, so it's a bigger embarrassment for the party (had they any sense of shame left), but also for the nation.

It's also an embarrassment that such nonsense can lead to seriously detrimental effects like postponing the transition period in a moment of national crisis.

I would consider it a national embarrassment if the issue could be laid at the feet of more than a small subset of Americans. What Christie was talking about the legal team's shenanigans.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Trump Tweets

In certain swing states, there were more votes than people who voted, and in big numbers. Does that not really matter? Stopping Poll Watchers, voting for unsuspecting people, fake ballots and so much more. Such egregious conduct. We will win!

That should go well in court. ... If there's evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think he means that people turned up to the polls and found that they had already voted - somebody having already voted on their behalf.

AIUI there have been a few cases of people trying to vote a second time (mostly Trump supporters following his instructions), some confused old people who had forgotten that they had voted and one lady in Nevada who refused to incriminate her roommate.

No, no, no! There were thousands. Must have been. Evidence should be all over the place. Will be presented in court in ... about two weeks.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

That is NOT a "national embarrassment". It is an embarrassment to Trump, Rudy, Powell, Ellis, and the Republican party.

I'm sorry, but it IS a national embarrassment. This circus is possible because the US has an arcane election system and a surprising number of corrupt politicians.

THAT is the swamp that wants draining.

Hans

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Tested, hell. Democracy had significant losses when Trump escaped removal by an almost strictly party line vote.

I think the tests have to include:

1) The dozen or so cases of Obstruction of Justice outlined in Mueller but set aside.

2) The Obstruction of Justice of ordering government officials to ignore lawful congressional subpoenas.

3) Wanton disregard of the Emoluments Clause, with no apparent consequences.

4) Wanton numerous violations of the Hatch Act, none acted upon.

I’m sure there are more.

 

[MRC_Hans]

One thing that has happened in years past in some places, and which may very well have happened this year, on both sides of the aisle, is that election volunteers offer to go to nursing homes and help people fill out ballots. Sometimes, the voter is susceptible to suggestion in those cases, and it's not really clear that the final vote represents the genuine desire of the voter. Or that the voter actually knows it is an election year.

It happens. Depending on the laws of the state such things may or may not be legal. I'm sure it is always illegal to tell people how to fill out a ballot, but exactly how much "help" can be offered may vary from state to state.


Another thing I have read about is the charge that poll workers were seen telling people to fill out ballots for Biden. That's illegal. Poll workers are supposed to be completely neutral, and should provide instructions on how to vote, but never in a way that favors one candidate or another. I'm confident that what really happens is something like this.

Voter: (Confused) I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with this?
Worker: Well, if you want to vote a straight party ticket, you fill in the oval at the party preference ballot. That casts a vote for the candidate of all of that parties representatives in all races. Then, you need to choose a candidate for each race in the non-partisan section.
Voter: Huh? What do you mean?
Worker: Well, in some races, the candidates are not listed by party affiliation, so.....
Voter: I just want to get rid of Trump!
Worker: Fill in this oval.


I am also fairly confident that in some cases, a voter expressed approval in some way of Trump, and the tone of voice of the worker indicated some sort of disapproval, and the Republican poll watchers recorded this as bias. In other words, poll workers are human beings, and that offended some Republican sensibilities.

And there are thousands and thousands of these cases? All in mail-in ballots? All skewing the same way?

Come on!

Hans