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


.

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

Security. I would think voting matters more than buying alcohol, something which requires ID at the time of purchase.

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

Of course, you bring this up again, eventhough such information was not solicited from you.

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

Just as username Purple Knight brought up, having evidence of a small amount of fraud doesn't necessarily mean that there is only a small amount of fraud. It certainly doesn't mean or prove that there's a lot of fraud either, but the question is how do we know either way? If our voter system is inadequate at catching fraud, then there can be a lot of cases going uncaught. But on top of that you want to decrease security, which would make it even harder to catch voter fraud or even harder to at least answer the question that you're trying to find out about (amount of voter fraud).

...And that question shouldn't just apply one time, because situations change. Our political environment today is very divided and even hostile. So the answer to the question back during a more unified time, may be different than at other times and under different environment. In other words, just because people weren't willing to cheat as much during Reagan's time, doesn't mean they won't be willing to do it at a later time (during Trump's time?) - so we shouldn't expect the answer to be static when the political environment (will it become more corrupt?) and time are not static. This would require periodic and frequent studies, instead of just some one time study.

[The Barbarian]

But on top of that you want to decrease security,

No. I want to keep it secure. After all, it's been very effective in preventing and detecting fraudulent voting. Maybe, in places where it's unreasonably difficult for some to vote, we should remove the obstructions. There are plenty of systems out there that don't suppress voting, and still maintain security, so that wouldn't be hard to do.

[AgnosticBoy]

But on top of that you want to decrease security,

No. I want to keep it secure. After all, it's been very effective in preventing and detecting fraudulent voting.

All that could mean is that security is only catching fraud in areas where there is security. What about in areas where there is a lack of security or oversight?! Meanwhile, you want less security by not allow voter ID laws at the time of voting, and then I presume you want to ask or bring up, that there is little to no incidence of voter impersonation?

Maybe, in places where it's unreasonably difficult for some to vote, we should remove the obstructions. There are plenty of systems out there that don't suppress voting, and still maintain security, so that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sure there are systems out there that don't suppress voting, and requiring voter ID is one of them. I used your own source to show that voter ID does not necessarily correlate with lower voter turnout. We can also allow more access to poll observers. Poll observers don't suppress voter turnout so are you against increasing that? If you bring up that we don't need poll observers, then I'd question again how would we ever know if someone is cheating in areas where there are not poll observers? You can't make the claim that there is little to no instance of cheating when you take away from the ability to catch cheating. Can you provide a logical case for why increased poll watching would be bad?

[Bust Nak]

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them.

Preventing all fraud or preventing mass fraud? The former is infeasible, the latter is arguably already achieved without ID.

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.

Along with mandatory time off work for voting, I can go with that.

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.

You can, but ease is not the only concern.

[AgnosticBoy]

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them.

Preventing all fraud or preventing mass fraud?

There's nothing wrong with trying to do both.

[Bust Nak]

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them.

Preventing all fraud or preventing mass fraud?

There's nothing wrong with trying to do both.

Sure there is, it's wrong to try in instances where it set in place undue difficulty in voting, especially where it disproportionately affects certain voting blocs. The only question is what is and isn't undue.

[AgnosticBoy]

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them.

Preventing all fraud or preventing mass fraud?

There's nothing wrong with trying to do both.

Sure there is, it's wrong to try in instances where it set in place undue difficulty in voting, especially where it disproportionately affects certain voting blocs. The only question is what is and isn't undue.

I'm not talking about adding more standards to the voter. Voter id is good enough for me. I'm referring to security for the other processes like having more poll watchers observing officials involved in the manual processing of ballots.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #108]

Does your ideal implementation of voter id eliminate no excuse absentee voting? If so then that crosses the undue difficulty line for me.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #108]

Does your ideal implementation of voter id eliminate no excuse absentee voting? If so then that crosses the undue difficulty line for me.

I am against no excuse absentee voting because then voters would bypass showing ID. This is unlike someone who is out of state or country who is not in a position to vote in person and show ID.

[Purple Knight]

If it's as easy as possible while preventing fraud and people still don't do it, that's on them.

Preventing all fraud or preventing mass fraud? The former is infeasible, the latter is arguably already achieved without ID.

If someone is getting away with it, it means there is a hole, and that others can go through the same hole. One instance of successful fraud is therefore a chance for mass fraud, and whether it occurs is dependent on how many people know about and decide to utilise that hole. Arguably unscrupulous people who get away with it are likely to share the technique.

If it's not feasible to plug every hole then we shouldn't even have voting because there's no reason to trust that the process has been fair to the losers. To this day I think Al Gore probably won that election. And I would hope that now that there's talk of Trump being defrauded out of votes as well, there can be bipartisan support, yes, for plugging every single hole.

One person being cheated out of their vote is unacceptable. One ballot in the garbage is unacceptable. One dead person voting is unacceptable. Why? Because one cheat is all it takes for fairness to be destroyed. If the process is no longer fair it's not worth having.