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".

Trumps 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 hasnt 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


.

[AgnosticBoy]

In the absence of any such evidence, and with abundant evidence that limiting voter ID is designed to keep certain groups from voting, there's no reason to let them change the rules on identification.

There's "no" reason? Did you forget your last response to me? Does requiring ID while voting (not just at registration) have a security function? You said it did.

I mean if you're trying to create a narrative for all of us to swallow, at least make sure that it's fair-and-balanced instead of just focusing on Republicans or focusing only on aspects that support your conclusions.

[Purple Knight]

No, I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that voter fraud is very rare. You're arguing that because there's so little evidence for cheating, there must be many cheaters. Not a very good argument, I think.

I'm arguing that because some people try and are caught, it's likely that others try and are not caught. You're asking for evidence of people who were not caught. That's not possible to produce.

For every cockroach you see...

Some of your examples of people being caught even throw up red flags to me.

Take the dead lady who was caught by her signature. Do they... do they seriously... check every single signature? Or, more likely, was it an idiot who got caught because they were an idiot? I imagine they only checked the signature when someone noticed something suspicious, such as a 21-year-old male voting as a 98-year-old female.

But you are advocating steps republicans have admitted are designed to keep legal voters from voting.

I am not. I would only advocate a measure that, while preventing fraud, only "keeps people from voting" if they're being kept from voting by nothing but their own laziness. Nothing that throws up roadblocks that are designed to be difficult or even bothersome to get round.

Most libertarians would hate it.

Libertarians are hypocrites who hate everything. Government exists despite their armchair whining and moaning. Most of them probably don't vote. The chip can exist despite their whining and moaning.

You want to trip a libertarian? Ask them if you should be allowed to own a lion. They'll immediately scream how it's dangerous and you're violating their rights. And if you point out that guns are also dangerous, they have nothing left but insults. Not that I want to take peoples' guns... unless they're libertarians who want to take away peoples' lions.

Libertarians seriously have the lowest molestation threshold of any group of people. Any. In other words, you cough and a libertarian will think he's been molested. They want so many rights that no one but them gets to do anything. Show me a libertarian and I'll show you an armchair dictator who wants to control everyone else's behaviour because "MUH RIGHTS!!!" but the instant he has to follow the most reasonable law in the world, he'll say it's unfair and wrong. Low molestation threshold.

More Biden votes than Trump votes.

I really don't care who the votes are for. The story I happened to read was Trump votes. One ballot found in the garbage is alarming and terrifying to me. And you have yet to tell me how I would know if someone threw out my ballot. Let's say the mailman is a diehard Trumpster. Let's say he guesses a neighbourhood he works in is a bunch of Biden-supporters. It won't be true in every case but if he destroys all the ballots, how would anyone know? I can tell you just on common sense that people are not digging through every garbage can to the very bottom.

It terrifies me that Gore might have won. It terrifies me that the system may not be fair.

[Bust Nak]

I am not. I would only advocate a measure that, while preventing fraud, only "keeps people from voting" if they're being kept from voting by nothing but their own laziness. Nothing that throws up roadblocks that are designed to be difficult or even bothersome to get round.

Wait, not designed to be difficult but incidentally difficult is good enough for you? We are talking about a right and duty to vote here. It needs to be explicitly designed to be easy.

[The Barbarian]

I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that voter fraud is very rare. You're arguing that because there's so little evidence for cheating, there must be many cheaters. Not a very good argument, I think.

I'm arguing that because some people try and are caught, it's likely that others try and are not caught.

Your evidence for this?

You're asking for evidence of people who were not caught. That's not possible to produce.

So because there's no evidence for it, we should conclude it's true?

Take the dead lady who was caught by her signature. Do they... do they seriously... check every single signature? Or, more likely, was it an idiot who got caught because they were an idiot? I imagine they only checked the signature when someone noticed something suspicious, such as a 21-year-old male voting as a 98-year-old female.

Show us that. What do you have?

But you are advocating steps republicans have admitted are designed to keep legal voters from voting.

I am not.

Seems that you are. As you know, IDs are already checked on voters; restricting the acceptable ID is admitted by republicans to be a means to keep qualified people from voting.

I would only advocate a measure that, while preventing fraud, only "keeps people from voting" if they're being kept from voting by nothing but their own laziness. Nothing that throws up roadblocks that are designed to be difficult or even bothersome to get round.

So show us the details, and explain why it would be better than the security we have now.

(suggestion to chip everyone)

Most libertarians would hate it.

Libertarians are hypocrites who hate everything.

I don't hate much of anything. I'm not an extreme libertarian, but I'm very leery of that kind of thing. Notice that your debit card is chipped and thereby, all sorts of people can read it remotely unless you shield it. It's not just government that can start tracing you thereby. The Chinese government considered it as a way of control, but rejected it partially for cost and partially because they wouldn't be the only ones with possible access to it.

Government exists despite their armchair whining and moaning. Most of them probably don't vote.

You're thinking of anarchists.

The chip can exist despite their whining and moaning.

It's very feasible, but I doubt if people would stand for it.

You want to trip a libertarian? Ask them if you should be allowed to own a lion. They'll immediately scream how it's dangerous and you're violating their rights.

I'd say you should be allowed to have it, providing you kept it secure. Private zoos are perfectly legal in most places. I'd be inclined to require such zoos have the same accreditation public zoos must have. It's not a government agency, and it is as much to protect the animals as it is to protect people.

And if you point out that guns are also dangerous, they have nothing left but insults. Not that I want to take peoples' guns... unless they're libertarians who want to take away peoples' lions.

Guns are a plague in America. But we do have the 2nd Amendment. I don't care for guns, but if I support taking away that Constitutional right, I'm endangering rights that I do care about. So it's different than keeping a lion, which no one has a Constitutional right to do.

Libertarians seriously have the lowest molestation threshold of any group of people. Any. In other words, you cough and a libertarian will think he's been molested.

The libertarian generally says "cough all you like, as long as you don't do it in my face."

They want so many rights that no one but them gets to do anything. Show me a libertarian and I'll show you an armchair dictator who wants to control everyone else's behaviour because "MUH RIGHTS!!!" but the instant he has to follow the most reasonable law in the world, he'll say it's unfair and wrong. Low molestation threshold.

In general, libertarians oppose taking away anyone's rights, because that's the wedge from which dictators can take everyone's rights. Most libertarians are right-wing, but you'll find (for example) that libertarians are generally open to unlimited immigration (which is what America had until the late 1800s).

I really don't care who the votes are for. The story I happened to read was Trump votes. One ballot found in the garbage is alarming and terrifying to me. And you have yet to tell me how I would know if someone threw out my ballot. Let's say the mailman is a diehard Trumpster. Let's say he guesses a neighbourhood he works in is a bunch of Biden-supporters. It won't be true in every case but if he destroys all the ballots, how would anyone know? I can tell you just on common sense that people are not digging through every garbage can to the very bottom.

It can't be guaranteed that every person qualified to vote, actually gets to vote, nor can it be guaranteed that no one not qualified ever votes. The evidence is that it's very rare. That being the case, it seems to rarely affect an election. Be sure the medicine doesn't do more damage than the disease.

It terrifies me that Gore might have won.

Possibly, he did. But it was so very close that it really was a coin toss as to who really won. It's entirely possible that a statewide recount might have turned the election to Gore. But Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount, nor did the law require it. He did the right thing for America and conceded. You have just seen the kind of disastrous results we get when a loser refuses to accept the legal outcome of an election. Gore was unwilling to have that happen. In retrospect, it didn't work out well for the United States, but the rule of law was more important, I think.

It terrifies me that the system may not be fair.

All governments are inherently unfair, in a absolute sense. And not only because of human selfishness. Fairness is only possible in a relative sense. It's better than anarchy, usually.

[The Barbarian]

Regarding libertarians and masks, this if from a person far more libertarians than I am (she, for example thinks people should be able to get medications without prescriptions):
I think that there's two questions about this. The first is, should people wear masks and stay home? And I think there, the libertarian answer is yes because libertarians believe or they should believe that people should wear masks because infecting someone with a harmful illness violates their bodily rights. Self-ownership and bodily rights are foundational to libertarianism. So masks make it less likely that people will violate these rights, so all libertarians should support mask-wearing and staying home when it's possible.

The second question is harder, though. Should the government enforce mask mandates and lockdowns? And there, the answer is more, it depends. The government should only restrict people's freedom in private spaces when it's necessary and when the benefits of enforcing it exceed the cost of enforcing it.

So some cases of preventing people from exposing other people to risks are less problematic. For example, the government enforces speed limits on public roads. But mask mandates or things like lockdowns would apply to private businesses as well. And in those cases, there's a higher burden of proof that the government would need to clear to establish that there really should be a mandate. But it's not as clear in some contexts that that burden of proof had been met.
...
I absolutely agree because as I said, I think everybody should wear a mask, and people should social distance for sure. But it's not as if enforcing a law is free of any kind of costs. And so in order to enforce a law that's limiting people's authority to run their businesses or act in certain ways in private spaces - we're not talking about the government spaces, where I think a mask mandate is totally fine.

But in private contexts, they should be able to show that they've tried less burdensome ways of addressing the virus first - so, for example, putting more resources behind expanding access to tests and medical care, provide more PPE, invest in contact tracing. FDA only approved pool testing yesterday. So public officials can require masks on government property, and they could try a lot of other ways to mitigate the virus.

[The Barbarian]

In the absence of any such evidence, and with abundant evidence that limiting voter ID is designed to keep certain groups from voting, there's no reason to let them change the rules on identification.

There's "no" reason?

Right. In the absence of a problem, it's kind of pointless to be looking for solutions, especially when the proposed "solutions" are those designed to make things worse.

Did you forget your last response to me? Does requiring ID while voting (not just at registration) have a security function? You said it did.

The point is, the proposed changes so far, are only those designed to keep qualified people from voting.

I mean if you're trying to create a narrative for all of us to swallow

As you see, the republicans have already done that as far as voter suppression is concerned.

On the other side, is the lack of evidence which people arguing for changes in voter ID laws ignore or want us to somehow believe that lack of evidence is evidence.

[Purple Knight]

I am not. I would only advocate a measure that, while preventing fraud, only "keeps people from voting" if they're being kept from voting by nothing but their own laziness. Nothing that throws up roadblocks that are designed to be difficult or even bothersome to get round.

Wait, not designed to be difficult but incidentally difficult is good enough for you? We are talking about a right and duty to vote here. It needs to be explicitly designed to be easy.

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them. If you want mandatory voting I might support that, but as it is, we don't.

Mandatory voting might actually solve issues with people being bullied out of their votes, whether that's by the Republicans or their spouses or anyone else. If the ballot box comes to you and it makes sure you get privacy, spouses would have no power to take away votes. This is one way I believe fraud happens. Husband and wife disagree. Ultimately one caves to the other. That's fraud. And voter suppression. Six of one; half dozen of the other.

[AgnosticBoy]

I am not. I would only advocate a measure that, while preventing fraud, only "keeps people from voting" if they're being kept from voting by nothing but their own laziness. Nothing that throws up roadblocks that are designed to be difficult or even bothersome to get round.

Wait, not designed to be difficult but incidentally difficult is good enough for you? We are talking about a right and duty to vote here. It needs to be explicitly designed to be easy.

Easy is subjective and an assumption of how our voting system should be. If I wanted easy, I can just do away with all checks, and just let everyone walk in and vote without question.

[AgnosticBoy]

In the absence of any such evidence, and with abundant evidence that limiting voter ID is designed to keep certain groups from voting, there's no reason to let them change the rules on identification.

Your reasoning is built on the assumption that only your standards should be considered. What about the standard of having security be proactive by preventing any potential fraud, instead of just reactive by being in place AFTER fraud is a problem? Imagine the store property owner, that knows that break-ins are possible but yet decides not to add cameras, perhaps because it might save him money. You're making it sound as if it would be wrong for him to add those cameras, but you have not made a LOGICAL case for that. You're only offering your personal standard.

I might also add that your personal standard appears to be partisan since you only focus on Republicans. I am not a Republican and I would push for voter ID laws. More importantly, the reason I would push for it is for security reasons which I've logically shown and you agreed with me that voter ID serves as a security function. How do you know some Democrats aren't also pushing or in favor of it?

There's "no" reason?

Right. In the absence of a problem, it's kind of pointless to be looking for solutions, especially when the proposed "solutions" are those designed to make things worse.

You said there is "no" reason, which is an absolute claim. The two reasons you brought up for that conclusion, i.e. "absence of a problem" and "it's designed to make things worse" do not explain how or why there is "no" reason. All your statement amounts to is just 3 different claims (even your conclusion is a claim) strung together like an argument.

I am simply asking if there is a reason for voter ID. I'm not asking for how Republicans used it, which is just a point of distraction from the real issue of if there's ANY reason (as in consider all reasons rather than just the reasons that Republicans use it for).

Did you forget your last response to me? Does requiring ID while voting (not just at registration) have a security function? You said it did.

The point is, the proposed changes so far, are only those designed to keep qualified people from voting.

I understand that that's the narrative you want to put out there, but I didn't ask you about Republicans or their reason for wanting voter ID. That would only count as ONE reason, but that doesn't prove that there aren't other reasons. I am addressing your claim that there is "no" reason or perhaps you meant to say no good reason?

I mean if you're trying to create a narrative for all of us to swallow

As you see, the republicans have already done that as far as voter suppression is concerned.

On the other side, is the lack of evidence which people arguing for changes in voter ID laws ignore or want us to somehow believe that lack of evidence is evidence.

You're jumping around into different issues. You're trying to give us a narrative that there is "no" reason for voter ID. That's my focus.

[The Barbarian]

You're jumping around into different issues. You're trying to give us a narrative that there is "no" reason for voter ID. That's my focus.

The crux of the problem is why, if there's no evidence of significant voter fraud, should we change the voter identification processes we have?

Aside from the republican goal of keeping people who tend to vote democrat, from voting, that is.

We're still back to the "the lack of evidence for voter fraud is proof that there is a lot of voter fraud" argument.