YOU'RE FIRED!

[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. . . .



“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


.

[Purple Knight]

Now let's turn that around. Since voter fraud is extremely rare, (I'm open to any checkable data that says otherwise) you could easily say that if one single person votes fraudulently, it would be O.K. to keep large numbers of qualified voters from voting. I don't think that works.

It doesn't, but there's not a Supreme Court ruling saying such a thing. If there was I would say it was ill-designed too.

That's not what they wrote. Any laws intended to keep qualified voters from voting are unacceptable. Since there are a good number of statements by republicans that such is their intent, that's sufficient.

You can't police intent. Republicans have been stupid enough to air out their terrible intentions enough to convince you that the bad guys will just hand you their master plan on a platter. They won't. A law that only catches stupid bad guys is ill-designed. A law that gives policers the right to determine what's in somebody's head is equally ill-designed.

As you have seen, security is more than adequate to stop unqualified voters. When Trump and his lawyers tried to claim fraud, they failed, because there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The major voting fraud in the U.S. involves keeping qualified voters from voting.

If keeping qualified voters from voting is easy, there's no reason not to assume (because if there's an exploit, people will exploit it) that Democrats can't just keep qualified Trump voters from voting.

And again, we have deplorables being able to say that they really won until the end of Time because you can't prove the process is fair. And it ought to be showable to anyone who asks that the process is fair. I base this not on pure logic (because no, we can't assume there was cheating until we see it) but on the common sense that people have a right to be shown that a process is fair. If you're telling me they should be happy dumping their votes into a mystery box when they can't see the machinery, I disagree. I think all the Gore supporters in Florida had a right to be upset that votes were simply lost and I'm forced to say the same now that some Trump votes appear to be getting themselves lost.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tempora ... d=73251533

If we don't have a provably fair process, there's no reason the losers should trust the system. Would you trust you lost a fair race if you knew there was a shorter track and were prevented from seeing whether your opponent took it? I wouldn't.

Notice how it went for them, this time. It was easy to prove they didn't. The counts and voter checks all came out right.

There's no way to discover true fraud - the one that affects the result. If the cheating is found out, it's corrected for and the person on the process-is-fair side wins, because, you see, they tried to cheat and failed. If the cheating is not found out, obviously there will not be evidence.

There being no way to falsify the idea that the process is fair, even if it is unfair, is why I think it's more reasonable for that side to have to prove it.

If we have to wait for large numbers of reasonable, non-deplorable people who don't paint their faces to get upset by the process, so be it. Right now it just seems like a case of no one caring what goes on in Florida and no one caring about deplorables. But when someone even worse than Trump uses the exploits we both agree are there and just wins by cheating harder, maybe there will be more oversight.

[The Barbarian]

Now let's turn that around. Since voter fraud is extremely rare, (I'm open to any checkable data that says otherwise) you could easily say that if one single person votes fraudulently, it would be O.K. to keep large numbers of qualified voters from voting. I don't think that works.

It doesn't,

That's what several states are doing. They have a very few cases of fraudulent voting, and propose "security" that is designed to keep qualified voters from voting.

That's not what they wrote. Any laws intended to keep qualified voters from voting are unacceptable. Since there are a good number of statements by republicans that such is their intent, that's sufficient.

You can't police intent.

Courts do. Regularly. So do many laws. Of course you can police intent. Murder, for example require intent.

Republicans have been stupid enough to air out their terrible intentions enough to convince you that the bad guys will just hand you their master plan on a platter.

That's more or less what they did, yes.

A law that only catches stupid bad guys is ill-designed.

A law that catches bad guys is a good law.

A law that gives policers the right to determine what's in somebody's head is equally ill-designed.

If so, there is no such thing as murder, or "intent to distribute." That's what juries decide.

As you have seen, security is more than adequate to stop unqualified voters. When Trump and his lawyers tried to claim fraud, they failed, because there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The major voting fraud in the U.S. involves keeping qualified voters from voting.

If keeping qualified voters from voting is easy, there's no reason not to assume (because if there's an exploit, people will exploit it) that Democrats can't just keep qualified Trump voters from voting.

It comes down to evidence. As you know, there's abundant evidence that republicans have done it; what do you have for democrats. Keep in mind, democrats have Gerrymandered districting in the past, just as republicans have presently. It's not a matter of democrats or republicans. It's a matter of Constitutionality. But you have a point in observing that the democrats could, if it was their party that lost the confidence of most voters, do what the republicans have done.

And again, we have deplorables being able to say that they really won until the end of Time because you can't prove the process is fair.

In fact, it's been shown that voter suppression was well-designed in places like Georgia. It just wasn't enough for the republicans to win.

And it ought to be showable to anyone who asks that the process is fair. I base this not on pure logic (because no, we can't assume there was cheating until we see it) but on the common sense that people have a right to be shown that a process is fair.

I notice the process in the disputed states was very transparent and open to observers. The courts repeatedly verified this.

If you're telling me they should be happy dumping their votes into a mystery box when they can't see the machinery, I disagree.

You seriously think that's what happened?

I think all the Gore supporters in Florida had a right to be upset that votes were simply lost and I'm forced to say the same now that some Trump votes appear to be getting themselves lost.

Eight of them, in fact.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tempora ... d=73251533

Happened to Biden, too. But not enough to affect the winner...
Biden expanded his lead over Trump in Pennsylvania over to more than 27,000 votes, with totals reported from Allegheny County that included a mix of overseas and military votes, as well as ballots that were held because of a vendor’s error.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BB1aKzZd

If we don't have a provably fair process, there's no reason the losers should trust the system.

That's what the courts did for us. Even Trump appointees found the complaints to be without foundation.

Notice how it went for them, this time. It was easy to prove they didn't. The counts and voter checks all came out right.

There's no way to discover true fraud -

In fact, it almost always gets caught. Mail-in ballots, for example, must have matching signatures. There was a dead voter caught in Pennsylvania. She voted for Trump.

There being no way to falsify the idea that the process is fair, even if it is unfair, is why I think it's more reasonable for that side to have to prove it.

Yes, "guilty until proven innocent" is not a just method.

If we have to wait for large numbers of reasonable, non-deplorable people who don't paint their faces to get upset by the process, so be it. Right now it just seems like a case of no one caring what goes on in Florida and no one caring about deplorables.

Odd use of "deplorables", I think.

But when someone even worse than Trump uses the exploits we both agree are there and just wins by cheating harder,

That's the post-mortem thinking in the GOP. But as Stacey Abrams has shown, it's possible to overcome the sort of cheating that Trump's people were doing.

[AgnosticBoy]

As you have seen, security is more than adequate to stop unqualified voters. When Trump and his lawyers tried to claim fraud, they failed, because there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The major voting fraud in the U.S. involves keeping qualified voters from voting.

Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. For instance, not requiring voter ID would not stop people from voting for someone else. Someone would still have the ability to vote for someone else and not show ID. Just because voter audits or investigations don't show that happening, that could just mean no one or very little have tried to do it OR that people are getting away with it. It doesn't mean that they can't do it. Seeing how divided the US is becoming and concerns about election fraud and interference, then I have no doubt that some may get desperate enough to try to cheat. We may not be that corrupt yet but my point is why would you leave that door open in the first place? And if that door is shut, by requiring IDs, there is nothing wrong with that if you aren't trying to cheat.

Some democrats need to stop arguing as if you can't have easier voting AND more security. Stop complaining about poll watchers, signature matching, that and stop making it out to seem that such measures are "suppression".

[The Barbarian]

As you have seen, security is more than adequate to stop unqualified voters. When Trump and his lawyers tried to claim fraud, they failed, because there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The major voting fraud in the U.S. involves keeping qualified voters from voting.

Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. For instance, not requiring voter ID would not stop people from voting for someone else.

Voters are already required to ID themselves when voting. Signature matching, driver's license, etc. At present, the GOP is trying to find a form of ID that will be harder for poor and minority people to have.

Someone would still have the ability to vote for someone else and not show ID.

It's been done. And they got caught. One guy tried to vote for his mom, after voting for himself. And yes, a Trump voter.
Prosecutors say Bruce Bartman actually registered two dead women to vote as Republicans in Nether Providence Township in advance of the presidential election: his mother Elizabeth Bartman, who died in 2008, and his mother-in-law Elizabeth Weihman, who died in 2019, per the Delaware County Daily Times. He successfully cast an absentee ballot for President Trump in his mother's name, prosecutors say. "In his political frustration, he chose to do something stupid," says a lawyer for the 70-year-old, who was arraigned Friday and released on $100,000 unsecured bail, per the Philadelphia Inquirer.
https://www.newser.com/story/300344/to- ... allot.html

And this:
Viebahn said that Thurman came to the South-1 precinct polling place at the Sugartown Elementary School earlier that day and asked whether he had to produce an identification card to vote. He was told that he did not, and only had to sign the voter registration log so long as he was not a first-time voter. Thurman then allegedly asked whether he could vote for his son, Kyle Thurman, but was told by poll worker Eric Frank that doing so would be illegal.

Thurman signed the register, was given a ballot, voted, and left the polling place, according to the complaint.

However, about 45 minutes later, Thurman reportedly returned to the precinct, this time wearing sunglasses, and identified himself as his son. He again signed the voter log, was given a ballot, and proceeded to vote, Viebahn wrote.

But Frank recognized Thurman as having been the man who had voted earlier and alerted the Judge of Election, his father, David Frank. When David Frank attempted to speak with him, Thurman “hurriedly fled the building,” the complaint states.
https://www.dailylocal.com/news/charges ... 9bc08.html

Thurmon is a republican, BTW.

Can you find any other cases? Neither can anyone else. All those "dead people" voting in Michigan? Reports of their deaths were greatly exaggerated:
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... aud-claims

Just because voter audits or investigations don't show that happening, that could just mean no one or very little have tried to do it OR that people are getting away with it.

Just because no one's caught any invisible orange leprechauns hiding in your attic could just mean no one or very little have tried to do it, OR that the leprechauns are very good at hiding. It doesn't mean they aren't there. Are you planning to get some leprechaun repellent?

Seeing how divided the US is becoming and concerns about election fraud and interference, then I have no doubt that some may get desperate enough to try to cheat.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression, for example. Both of those are proven and widespread. To ignore those frauds and to focus on something no one has been able to show is a problem, is like telling firefighters to stop putting water on a burning house and check it for cockroaches first.

We may not be that corrupt yet but my point is why would you leave that door open in the first place?

See above. Some foolish people assumed the door was open. They ran head-on into it.

Turns out, ballot security is pretty good. On the other hand, voter suppression continues to be an ongoing fraud against our elections. Let's tend to the burning house first and worry about possible cockroaches later.

[AgnosticBoy]

Voters are already required to ID themselves when voting. Signature matching, driver's license, etc.

Not all states require voter ID when voting. A lot of the Blue states, like California and New York, do not require voter ID. One source that backs up my claims is here (just click on New York and California).

Someone would still have the ability to vote for someone else and not show ID.

It's been done. And they got caught. One guy tried to vote for his mom, after voting for himself. And yes, a Trump voter.
Prosecutors say Bruce Bartman actually registered two dead women to vote as Republicans in Nether Providence Township in advance of the presidential election: his mother Elizabeth Bartman, who died in 2008, and his mother-in-law Elizabeth Weihman, who died in 2019, per the Delaware County Daily Times. He successfully cast an absentee ballot for President Trump in his mother's name, prosecutors say. "In his political frustration, he chose to do something stupid," says a lawyer for the 70-year-old, who was arraigned Friday and released on $100,000 unsecured bail, per the Philadelphia Inquirer.
https://www.newser.com/story/300344/to- ... allot.html

There are a few problems with your reasoning here. The first problem is that you're only telling me about the people who have been caught, but that doesn't tell me about how many who haven't been caught and the ability to cheat in the first place when you lack voter ID laws. As for your specific case, I'd want to know when or how he was caught. It seems that he could've been caught perhaps because some official at the polling place may've had access to records of deceased voters, so that alone could flag the vote.

I question if a state that requires no ID, can have people impersonating someone else and voting for them simply by not showing ID, and then that person gets away with it. Even a polling official can do that. If they have records of people who haven't voted (and we know not everyone votes.. over 40% of Philadelphia's electorate did not vote in the 2020 Presidential election... that's a lot of votes), then they can just vote for them.

You see one big problem with the reasoning I have been reading is that it wants SECURITY to be reactive by only catching problems AFTER they happen or only bringing it in place AFTER fraud is discovered. Security is also supposed to be PROACTIVE by preventing problems that CAN happen. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it can't happen. Given this toxic political environment we're in, I can see a lot of motive for it to start happening more and more.

Refer to this article that contains a list of cases involving voter impersonation:
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

[Purple Knight]

You can't police intent.

Courts do. Regularly. So do many laws. Of course you can police intent. Murder, for example require intent.

I know. I think it's horrid. Judges aren't mind-readers, neither are juries, and people wonder why courtrooms have turned into racism factories. I don't. I don't wonder at all what allows judges and juries a free pass to act on their implicit biases: They get to determine guilt and punishment based on what they think is in the other guy's head. How can that have any oversight?

You want fairness? X action = Y punishment. You didn't mean to? Too bad. Be more careful next time.

A law that catches bad guys is a good law.

A law that catches only stupid bad guys doesn't make any fewer opportunities for people to be bad guys. It just moves smarter people into those places. It also makes sure all bad guys get smarter. The stupid ones just get replaced with smarter ones.

If you're telling me they should be happy dumping their votes into a mystery box when they can't see the machinery, I disagree.

You seriously think that's what happened?

...

I notice the process in the disputed states was very transparent and open to observers. The courts repeatedly verified this.

I personally do not know my vote was counted. I just know I didn't lose. If the mailman or someone else threw it away, how would I know that?

Happened to Biden, too.

I would expect that.

That's what the courts did for us. Even Trump appointees found the complaints to be without foundation.

I don't know that they weren't bought off. I don't know what happens in those courtrooms. You say the process is transparent but I haven't seen that. I stopped trusting it after Gore lost. I was following it closely and I'm convinced he should have won.

The point is that the voter has no way to know his vote counted. If eight ballots are found in the trash, how many more were not found? If people are trashing them and dead people are voting I just don't trust the process.

I'm not saying people are guilty until proven innocent. I'm not saying punish anyone without evidence. I'm saying that the default should be that the process is not fair. If you want people to trust it, it should be provably fair.

You're asking for evidence of successful fraud. What would that even look like? If there was widespread fraud and corruption at the highest levels, what evidence would you expect that to leave? If people were getting away with voter fraud, what evidence would there ever be of it?

[The Barbarian]

Voters are already required to ID themselves when voting. Signature matching, driver's license, etc.

Not all states require voter ID when voting. A lot of the Blue states, like California and New York, do not require voter ID. One source that backs up my claims is here (just click on New York and California).

Well, let's take a look...
California requires a valid driver's license, social security number, or some other identification for which you have to apply to the local county registrar.
https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/

New York:
As of November 2019, voters could present the following forms of identification:

A current, valid photo ID, including but not limited to a drivers' license or a DMV-issued non-driver photo ID
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document with the voter's name and address
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_New_York

You can register without ID, but in that case, you have to present ID when voting.

Someone would still have the ability to vote for someone else and not show ID.

It's been done. And they got caught. One guy tried to vote for his mom, after voting for himself. And yes, a Trump voter.
Prosecutors say Bruce Bartman actually registered two dead women to vote as Republicans in Nether Providence Township in advance of the presidential election: his mother Elizabeth Bartman, who died in 2008, and his mother-in-law Elizabeth Weihman, who died in 2019, per the Delaware County Daily Times. He successfully cast an absentee ballot for President Trump in his mother's name, prosecutors say. "In his political frustration, he chose to do something stupid," says a lawyer for the 70-year-old, who was arraigned Friday and released on $100,000 unsecured bail, per the Philadelphia Inquirer.
https://www.newser.com/story/300344/to- ... allot.html

There are a few problems with your reasoning here. The first problem is that you're only telling me about the people who have been caught, but that doesn't tell me about how many who haven't been caught and the ability to cheat in the first place when you lack voter ID laws.

Just as you haven't shown me the invisible orange leprechauns that might be living in your attic. The fact you don't have any, doesn't tell me about how many of them are there and haven't yet been caught. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

As for your specific case, I'd want to know when or how he was caught.

Don't see that it matters, so long as it was done legally.

It seems that he could've been caught perhaps because some official at the polling place may've had access to records of deceased voters, so that alone could flag the vote.

That would be fine.

I question if a state that requires no ID

So far, haven't found one like that. As you see, California and New York do require a person to identify, even to register, or if they don't, they must then identify when voting.

You see one big problem with the reasoning I have been reading is that it wants SECURITY to be reactive by only catching problems AFTER they happen or only bringing it in place AFTER fraud is discovered.

Presumption of innocence might seem like a bad thing, but the Anglo-Saxon legal system we inherited has always been like that.

Security is also supposed to be PROACTIVE by preventing problems that CAN happen.

Apparently, it is. Notice the small number of actual incidents of fraud. It would be pretty much like putting a meteorite shield over the polling place to protect it. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Given this toxic political environment we're in, I can see a lot of motive for it to start happening more and more.

There have been more Trump followers caught trying to cheat. That was true of the last election too. Would you like to see that?

Refer to this article that contains a list of cases involving voter impersonation:
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
[/quote]

Thirty-one out of one billion ballots? Which means three spurious votes per ten million votes. You're in meteorite shield country there.

[AgnosticBoy]

Not all states require voter ID when voting. A lot of the Blue states, like California and New York, do not require voter ID. One source that backs up my claims is here (just click on New York and California).

Well, let's take a look...
California requires a valid driver's license, social security number, or some other identification for which you have to apply to the local county registrar.
https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/

New York:
As of November 2019, voters could present the following forms of identification:

A current, valid photo ID, including but not limited to a drivers' license or a DMV-issued non-driver photo ID
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document with the voter's name and address
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_New_York

You can register without ID, but in that case, you have to present ID when voting.

I'm sorry but your claim is very misleading. Why didn't you quote this part of my source:
"New York does not require voters to present identification while voting"

You used my ballotpedia source but did not even acknowledge that it supports my claim, and furthermore, you left out the part that supported my claim and presented information that would mislead someone into thinking that ID is required.

For the record, do you acknowledge that voter ID is NOT needed at the time of voting in New York and California?

[Purple Knight]

There are a few problems with your reasoning here. The first problem is that you're only telling me about the people who have been caught, but that doesn't tell me about how many who haven't been caught and the ability to cheat in the first place when you lack voter ID laws.

Just as you haven't shown me the invisible orange leprechauns that might be living in your attic. The fact you don't have any, doesn't tell me about how many of them are there and haven't yet been caught. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

It's not, but you're asking for evidence of successful fraud. You're asking for evidence of people who got away with it. What would that even look like? It's a reasonable question.

[The Barbarian]

There are a few problems with your reasoning here. The first problem is that you're only telling me about the people who have been caught, but that doesn't tell me about how many who haven't been caught and the ability to cheat in the first place when you lack voter ID laws.

Just as you haven't shown me the invisible orange leprechauns that might be living in your attic. The fact you don't have any, doesn't tell me about how many of them are there and haven't yet been caught. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.[/quote]

It's not, but you're asking for evidence of successful fraud.

I'm asking for evidence that it's a significant problem at all.

I'm pointing out that absent any evidence, you can't logically assume what you have assumed. Otherwise you need to do something about those leprechauns.

What would that even look like? It's a reasonable question.

"I can't prove it's a problem, so we have to do stuff to prevent it." I don't see that as a good argument.