YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 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
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #171

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:22 amThe beauty of just doing it legally means everyone gets the same vote, as democracy requires.
If democracy requires that everyone get the same vote, then democracy requires reasonable proof that everyone is getting the same vote. If people are entitled to the same vote, then people are entitled to know they're getting the same vote.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #172

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:20 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:34 pmwhen the results are "mixed"?
The GAO pointed out that overall voting sometimes goes down and sometimes isn't changed and sometimes goes up, when age and ethnicity isn't considered.

So they took a look at that and their own study that did look at those factors, as Dr. Hajnal's study did, came up with the same results. Minority voting declined and so did voting by younger citizens. Which, as you know, was the intent of such laws. The GAO study replicated the results from Dr. Hajnal's study.
I understand that the GAO did their own study and concluded that there was a decrease in voter turnout. But in that same paper, they also reviewed 10 other studies. But where does it say that any or all of those 10 studies did not factor in age and ethnicity?

Also, even if those 10 studies did not isolate age and race as factors, I brought up a 2018 study that did such, and it disagreed with your conclusions. So that alone shows that there are mixed study results on this issue. And as a bonus, here's yet another study, 2019 study, that disagrees with your conclusion:
Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.
Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

So what's clear based on FOUR studies, i.e. the ones from GAO, Dr. Hajnal's, my 2018 study, and 2019 study, is that voter ID has little (decreases voting by 2%???) to no effect on voter turnout. Even if we disregard the "mixed" results, do you consider 2% decrease in votes as being an effective means of "voter suppression"?

...............................................................
I question what if any action should be taken based off of these studies. Even if we found a greater effect on voter decrease, like say >15%, is the solution then to take away voter ID requirement? Or should it be to question why someone in this day and age would not have an ID given that it's required to drink, drive, and get a job? Although, I also question if these people even cared to vote to begin with. Did they not vote because they lacked ID or did they not care to vote at all? I'd like a study to answer that question.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #173

Post by The Barbarian »

Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.6-billion-observations panel dataset, 2008–2018, we find that the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.
Source: Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons; Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Your source doesn't say what you want it to say:
"However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 5.4 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities. Finally, strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud – actual or perceived. Overall, our findings suggest that efforts to improve elections may be better directed at other reforms. "
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522

This is what happened in Georgia. Activists pushed back hard, and overcame voter suppression laws. So did the republicans decide to give up and stop trying to suppress minority voting? Nope. They decided that the problem was that they didn't cheat hard enough. Hence the new law designed to counter minority voter turnout efforts. As your source already admits, voter suppression strategies likely "modestly" affect voter turnout, although until the recent law, those efforts were legal and effective. As you know, "modestly" would have been good enough in Georgia to allow Trump to win, and to save two Senate seats for republicans. Hence the frantic republican efforts to outlaw the tactics Stacy Abrams used to undermine voter suppression.

Republicans, stung by the failure of their fraudulent attempts, doubled down, to the point where they actually made it illegal to give a drink of water to someone waiting to vote. And if that doesn't work, they'll increase the pressure by any means courts will tolerate.

But it looks now as though Congress is going to ban voter suppression, and maybe outlaw Gerrymandering. That would be a huge victory for America and for freedom.

So it all might be moot.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #174

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:45 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:22 amThe beauty of just doing it legally means everyone gets the same vote, as democracy requires.
If democracy requires that everyone get the same vote, then democracy requires reasonable proof that everyone is getting the same vote. If people are entitled to the same vote, then people are entitled to know they're getting the same vote.
Yes. I'm in favor of making it mandatory to vote, absent a written statement of religious or moral objection from the voter. If we did that, then we'd have exactly what you propose. And it's a good idea.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #175

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:04 pm'm in favor of making it mandatory to vote, absent a written statement of religious or moral objection from the voter. If we did that, then we'd have exactly what you propose. And it's a good idea.
If they have a religious or moral objection they can mark none of the above or even, no I won't vote. Most people won't do that, however, and if we drag everyone to court for failing to vote, and somebody was unfairly blocked, that's going to come out in the wash.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #176

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:36 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:04 pm'm in favor of making it mandatory to vote, absent a written statement of religious or moral objection from the voter. If we did that, then we'd have exactly what you propose. And it's a good idea.
If they have a religious or moral objection they can mark none of the above or even, no I won't vote.
I'm thinking Jehovah's Witnesses, many (or all?) of whom think such things are sinful. Constitution recognizes their right to not take part in government.
Most people won't do that, however, and if we drag everyone to court for failing to vote, and somebody was unfairly blocked, that's going to come out in the wash.
No need for that.

More than 96 percent of eligible Australians are enrolled to vote. Of those, more than 90 percent typically turn out to cast ballots for a federal election, far more than the 55 percent of eligible Americans who participated in the 2016 presidential election.

Australians are induced to vote with both sticks and carrots. Shirkers can be fined up to nearly 80 Australian dollars if they fail to show at the polls. But voting, which always takes place on a Saturday, is also made easy and efficient, and is often accompanied by a community barbecue that includes eating what locals affectionately call “democracy sausages.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/worl ... oting.html

Donald Trump said that if nearly everyone voted, no republican would ever be elected again. That's wrong. What would happen, would be that republicans would modify their principles to enable them to win elections.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #177

Post by The Barbarian »

Error. Please delete
Last edited by The Barbarian on Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18562
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 210 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #178

Post by otseng »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:04 pm12


Please note rule 9...

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Please elaborate your answers in the future to avoid violation of this rule.


User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #179

Post by The Barbarian »

otseng wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:43 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:04 pm12


Please note rule 9...

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Please elaborate your answers in the future to avoid violation of this rule.

Ah, sorry. Thought I had removed it. I kept getting a notification of a reply to a post to which I had already replied. I was trying to see if I could get around the glitch by another reply. Just forgot to take it out. Sorry.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #180

Post by Purple Knight »

I've been getting the same notification.

One of Barby's posts and/or one of mine are mixed up somehow so that when ANYONE posts in this thread, it tells him I replied to him, and it tells me he replied to me.

Post Reply