YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .

Image

“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"


"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source


So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3473
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #131

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:48 pmAlso as I've asked Purple Knight, is this more or less fair than whole voting blocs being marginalised?
I don't buy the argument that accepting that some people are marginalised is okay, so more people won't be. Neither is fair and when you weigh one against the other with the intention of choosing one and ignoring the other, you don't ameliorate unfairness; you create more unfairness.

You create an oppressed minority, which is what you're trying to avoid. These voting blocs need extra protection because they're minorities. No one disputes that. But when you play a numbers game with unfairness and decide that 2,000 people don't need justice so more people can have justice, you've just created slaves. Think about it. Others get to tell them what to do and they can't fight back. The lesson of History is that you can't brush anyone aside simply because they are few.

Everyone who is marginalised needs to be in the spotlight, until that is repaired. Once you stop fighting for even one of those people, it's a tyranny. Once you give up this person's justice so that person or even those two people can have justice, it ain't justice.

If we can't protect everyone's vote then we need to just not have voting because at that point, it's pointless.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #132

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:24 pm I don't buy the argument that accepting that some people are marginalised is okay, so more people won't be.
Well, that was not the argument was it? It's was that accepting some opportunity for fraud is okay, so no one would be marginalised.
when you play a numbers game with unfairness and decide that 2,000 people don't need justice so more people can have justice...
But you can have both. Make it easy to vote AND hold those who exploit an easy system accountable, instead of making it harder to vote and harder to exploit. They caught this 2000 votes incident without using voter ID, didn't they?
If we can't protect everyone's vote then we need to just not have voting because at that point, it's pointless.
Then accept it is pointless and don't vote. No system can catch all fraud.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3473
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #133

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:15 am
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:24 pm I don't buy the argument that accepting that some people are marginalised is okay, so more people won't be.
Well, that was not the argument was it?
It was. You're trying to get people to accept that some fraud will happen and we shouldn't try harder to catch it because the many matter more than the few. You're not getting that as soon as you intentionally sweep people under the rug, you've created an oppressed minority. You've created people who don't matter.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #134

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:24 pm It was. You're trying to get people to accept that some fraud will happen and we shouldn't try harder to catch it because the many matter more than the few.
You can try harder to catch it without introducing barriers to voting though. I proposed the latter, not the former.
You're not getting that as soon as you intentionally sweep people under the rug, you've created an oppressed minority. You've created people who don't matter.
Even if we take this claim for granted, as long as the number of votes in this oppressed minority isn't enough to change the result, then why does it matter in practice?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3473
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #135

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:43 amYou can try harder to catch it without introducing barriers to voting though. I proposed the latter, not the former.
I'm basically in agreement with you, but the incentive is still to commit fraud because you might not be caught, and the leadership of the country is more important than any punishment you might face. The basic problem is that no matter how much fraud your side commits, you can only gain votes and you can't lose them. You could flog people in the street or even give them the death penalty and they'd still do it. It would ultimately be big money interests having them do it.

I'm not suggesting that, for example, Biden gets a penalty of 10,000 votes if his side commits fraud, because then, Trumpers will just commit fraud in favour of Biden and have other Trumpers "discover" it to influence the election.

But there has to be some way to destroy that incentive.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:43 am
You're not getting that as soon as you intentionally sweep people under the rug, you've created an oppressed minority. You've created people who don't matter.
Even if we take this claim for granted, as long as the number of votes in this oppressed minority isn't enough to change the result, then why does it matter in practice?
It matters both because the right to vote is a fundamental right, and because you can't know that until you can guarantee that you have caught all fraud.

By the logic that it's permissible to take away votes as long as it doesn't influence the election, you could, for example, just decide not to count Jews. They're about 2% of the population. It's unlikely they'll ever influence an election. We both know that would be a horrible injustice regardless of whether they made a difference or not; I'm just trying to get you to see that if you do it to another tiny minority of people, you've done exactly the same thing.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #136

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:06 pm I'm basically in agreement with you, but the incentive is still to commit fraud because you might not be caught, and the leadership of the country is more important than any punishment you might face. The basic problem is that no matter how much fraud your side commits, you can only gain votes and you can't lose them. You could flog people in the street or even give them the death penalty and they'd still do it. It would ultimately be big money interests having them do it.
But that's an ineffective way of controlling the leadership of the country. Look around you, big money is already doing that by buying up media, why risk voter fraud when you can get the same result legally? Why risk voter fraud when election fraud is far more cost effective?
It matters both because the right to vote is a fundamental right, and because you can't know that until you can guarantee that you have caught all fraud.
There is no guaranteeing that, even if you have indeed caught 100% of fraud.
By the logic that it's permissible to take away votes as long as it doesn't influence the election, you could, for example, just decide not to count Jews. They're about 2% of the population. It's unlikely they'll ever influence an election.
Permissible and doesn't change the result in practice aren't the same thing. I am arguing for the latter, not the former.
We both know that would be a horrible injustice regardless of whether they made a difference or not; I'm just trying to get you to see that if you do it to another tiny minority of people, you've done exactly the same thing.
I disagree. Not letting someone vote is a far worse injustice than not correcting mistakes after fraud has happened. More to the point, what you were suggesting in putting up barriers to voting is closer to taking away votes than letting fraud slide, plus it affects lots more people that would go on to influence the election.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3473
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #137

Post by Purple Knight »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:43 amBut that's an ineffective way of controlling the leadership of the country. Look around you, big money is already doing that by buying up media, why risk voter fraud when you can get the same result legally? Why risk voter fraud when election fraud is far more cost effective?
Maybe because you don't have money. Regardless, my point stands. Since you can only gain votes and can't lose them from fraud, always commit fraud. It's logical to do so. The worst that can happen is they'll take away what was ill-gotten, and the best that can happen is your side gains votes. Punishment will never make this a bad bet for people who care about the election, which is why you have people calling for more security.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:43 amI disagree. Not letting someone vote is a far worse injustice than not correcting mistakes after fraud has happened.
You just argued that it was about the result. You can't simultaneously hold that it doesn't matter if it's not enough people to affect the election, and hold that the way in which someone's vote is taken away, or the reason it was taken away, makes something a worse injustice.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #138

Post by Bust Nak »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:26 pm Maybe because you don't have money.
Big money interests that have enough money to pay off thousands to commit individual voter fraud, but don't have enough to pay a few individuals to commit mass election fraud or run a Facebook ad?
Regardless, my point stands. Since you can only gain votes and can't lose them from fraud, always commit fraud. It's logical to do so. The worst that can happen is they'll take away what was ill-gotten, and the best that can happen is your side gains votes.
Only if you don't mind getting caught.
Punishment will never make this a bad bet for people who care about the election, which is why you have people calling for more security.
Is that right? I take it you care about the last election, did you do the logical thing and committed fraud? Presumably all those who are calling for more security also care about the election, do you think they did the logical thing and committed fraud?
You just argued that it was about the result. You can't simultaneously hold that it doesn't matter if it's not enough people to affect the election, and hold that the way in which someone's vote is taken away, or the reason it was taken away, makes something a worse injustice.
Why not? Watch me do it again, take this contrived scenario as an example, someone cut in front of you in a queue because he is a thoughtless inconsiderate jerk vs someone cutting in front of you because he is maliciously targeting you. The end result is the same, yet the latter is a worse injustice.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #139

Post by The Barbarian »

Maybe because you don't have money. Regardless, my point stands. Since you can only gain votes and can't lose them from fraud, always commit fraud. It's logical to do so. The worst that can happen is they'll take away what was ill-gotten, and the best that can happen is your side gains votes. Punishment will never make this a bad bet for people who care about the election, which is why you have people calling for more security.
It always comes down to evidence. The most ineffective way to commit election fraud is have people vote, who aren't legally qualified to vote. They almost always get caught. The most effective way to commit election fraud is to prevent qualified people from voting, which if you do it right, won't even be a crime. This is why political parties, when they suspect that voting will go against them, have always chosen to suppress votes, not vote illegally.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #140

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:33 pm It always comes down to evidence. The most ineffective way to commit election fraud is have people vote, who aren't legally qualified to vote. They almost always get caught.
One of Purple Knight's earlier points apply here, and I don't see how your point refutes his. I question how we can determine that voter fraud "almost always get caught". The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught. In fact, that might be difficult information to obtain given the fact that we wouldn't know about the uncaught cases to be able to put a number on it. It also doesn't help when you're not in favor of the one factor that can close that gap in knowledge, which is extra oversight and security. You can shout from your rooftop all day that there is little to no cheating, but your point would have little value if there was little to no oversight and security to catch cheating in the first place.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:33 pmThe most effective way to commit election fraud is to prevent qualified people from voting, which if you do it right, won't even be a crime. This is why political parties, when they suspect that voting will go against them, have always chosen to suppress votes, not vote illegally.
I'm sure we can both think of scenarios where LESS security and oversight would make it easier to cheat, and we can also think of ways how making it too difficult to vote would restrict voting (suppress votes, some may even say it's cheating, as well). Is that a fair point?

I've read reports about some Republicans wanting to take away ballot drop boxes and shorten early voting window. I haven't heard any good arguments for how that would help secure the elections. But at the same time, some Democrats are also not helping the matter when they think we need LESS security and oversight, like those who argue against VOTER ID. We need ID to buy alcohol and to drive, but all of the sudden it's a big issue when it comes to needing ID to vote? hmm.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply