President Trump has Covid19

[DocJones]

I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted. As long as they all follow the same standard for what is a legitimate vote and what is cast aside on a technically, I don't violate the standard set in Bush v. Gore.

No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county.  There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.

[Ghostmaker]

I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted. As long as they all follow the same standard for what is a legitimate vote and what is cast aside on a technically, I don't violate the standard set in Bush v. Gore.

No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county.  There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.

Don't forget that Florida also requires (not recommends, REQUIRES) the Florida Secretary of State to certify the votes by a certain date. The law gives no wiggle room,  but the Democrats cried to the Florida Supreme Court to give them a mulligan till SCOTUS slapped them down.

[VisionStorm]

The question is: How is this Trump's fault?

Outside of potentially misleading (note the word choice, BOTH words) claim that it was just Obama's tax provision, I didn't say anything was or was not his fault. But as a rhetorical question, I take your point.

Sure. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply you meant anything specific by it. Just using your comment as a springboard since you elaborated on rawma's comment on the issue.

And yes, both sides are garbage, and the two political parties have been corrupt and screwing over the American public for decades. But in the current political climate there are two sides that transcend political affiliation. One is normal regular people with varying degrees of understanding and investment on the political process, but at least a modicum of common sense to see through some of the bullshit or at least get a sense that something is "off", and the other one is frothing at the mouth lunatics obsessed with Trump.

Then be the change you want to see: start with the assumption that there COULD be something nefarious hidden in there and that's why he doesn't want you to see his tax returns. That is a plausible explanation (more plausible than the explanations the President has given). THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S TRUE.

Have a modicum of common sense and see that if you don't hold our own side accountable, who is more likely to get away with lying to you? The person you suspect of lying to you (the MSM, in your case) all the time, or the person whispering what you want to hear in your ear all the time?

Nothing in that statement should be read as saying the President did this or that. It's a warning that should hold true no matter who you are. Have the common sense you're asking for others to and be at peace rather than frothing in obsession over those who froth in obsession over the President.

Oh yeah. I don't doubt that there exists the possibility that there could possibly (maybe?) be something nefarious hidden in the President's tax returns. I see him as kind of a sleazy businessman, so I wouldn't put it pass him. However, there is such a thing as the burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty. And while a guilty person might deny any wrongdoing so would an innocent person, so it doesn't really serve me to assume that anyone denying guilt must be lying, since that would make everyone a liar, even the people telling the truth.

But when a group of people has been consistently trying cling to any and all accusations and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" conspiracy nonsense in a desperate attempt to find something (anything!) that sticks to hang the President with, there comes a point where I will just roll my eyes and wait for the evidence. And by "evidence" I mean actual concrete "proof" rather than idle speculation from deranged people on the internet, obsessed with the man and trumpeting (pun!) out their "theories" as settled fact.

[Steven Mitchell]

And the more general principle still stands. With a close national popular vote, you might need to recount 130 million ballots. If only Florida is in dispute, that's reduced to 9 million ballots, and from a practical standpoint could be much less (cf. the 4 counties). There's a real practical advantage to blocking votes, though statewide groupings are a grosser than ideal division.

The original reason is still the best--that we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.  Though the side effect on restraining voter fraud you list is certainly a reason to admire the main reason even more.

In any case, the real answer to the states being too diverse in population to fit the original constitutional model is easily fixed with a constitutional amendment that has been often suggested:  Change the electoral college to not be winner takes all in each state but have everyone use the Maine/Nebraska model. There, each congressional district gets an electoral vote and the state as a whole still get their two votes for regional interests.  Only one thing really stands in the way of this solution--the democrats will never agree because they'd be slaughtered in presidential elections for a generation.  This is how you know that their stated reason for wanting a change is not true.

[Delete_me]

If you're basing your medical decisions on the President's body language and not the expert opinion of your doctor, you've got lots more problems than I can address here.

Ad hominem, irrelevant to the argument.

Trump made some incorrect speculations and then clumsily walked them back. He didn't tell people to "Inject Bleach" or "drink bleach", which was the headline afterwards.

Shifting the goalpost to cover up for your earlier claim being shown to be incorrect. Making it someone else's fault by showing a hysterical headline does not mean that your claim that it was about injecting UV is correct.

(EDIT: forgot the word  is.)

[Pat]

The original reason is still the best--that we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.  Though the side effect on restraining voter fraud

The US would still be a constitutional republic with direct popular voting for the President, because either way the President is still a representative of the people. Direct democracy generally applies to things like ballot initiatives. It's not practical for general governance, because you can't manage a massive suite of organizations by having a vote every time one of the millions of staff have to make a decision. It wouldn't even be practical to have a popular vote on every bill that comes through Congress.

Fraud is a big potential issue in recounts. We have mechanisms in place to handle regular votes, but if there's a recount that's not a routine planned thing, it's basically an emergency where you have to mobilize and scale up quickly. That kind of situation is easier to exploit, so whatever flaws and potential for fraud that exist during a normal vote will only be amplified. And the larger the scale of the operation, the more opportunities there will be, and the harder it will be to ensure things go smoothly.

I think the biggest argument is: If two candidates are neck and neck, does it really matter which one wins? From a practical, immediate standpoint, yes. The results for the country may be very different, depending on who runs the country for the next four years. That's why it's such a partisan issue, because people are looking at the immediate reward of their candidate winning. But from the standpoint of a constitutional republic? No, it doesn't matter whether the 51% or the 49% candidate wins. They both were chosen by almost exactly the same number of people, so either represents the people about equally. If the ground rules were known beforehand, and the election was fair, then the mechanism for choosing the top candidate in a close race isn't the existential threat to democracy that people who really really want their candidate to win this time think it is.

[Delete_me]

No actually it would violate Bush v. Gore, because the argument was the standard for recount had to be statewide, not by county.  There is no State where Federal elections would be recounted in the manner you suggest.

No, actually, it wouldn't. Read the opinion of the court again very closely. Bush v. Gore's due process complaint held that the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD ADDED RULES after the fact of what could and could not be counted (and that it was county-by-county instead of rules applying to the whole state), and thus violated due process. It does not speak to whether or not these same rules could have been added BEFORE the election IF they had applied STATE WIDE, as  I supposed.

As for what I suggested: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, can all do it that way in a Federal election. So can D.C. if I remember correctly (although there it's on a precinct by precinct basis). County canvassers are free to recount their county in a great number of states if that county is close to a tie. It doesn't happen much because, on the whole, it tends not to change elections.

[Delete_me]

Sure. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply you meant anything specific by it. Just using your comment as a springboard since you elaborated on rawma's comment on the issue.

Understood and  appreciated then.

Oh yeah. I don't doubt that there exists the possibility that there could possibly (maybe?) be something nefarious hidden in the President's tax returns. I see him as kind of a sleazy businessman, so I wouldn't put it pass him. However, there is such a thing as the burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty.

So there is a common  misconception about what is the burden of proof  and  when it is applied. Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock of our legal system, but most folks trip up on the burden of proof. I don't have to prove someone is guilty before an investigation begins. I have to prove there's enough reasonable suspicion to open an investigation. That burden of proof is very, VERY low. It's above a scintilla, but definitely less than a preponderance of the evidence.

And that makes sense, if you think about it in the abstract. If I am expected to prove my entire case before I can go to discovery and get the documents I need, how would I ever be able to prove anything except the most absolutely flagrant violations? As long as someone was  even decent at lying, then I'd never be able to catch a wrongdoer and we would be without law and order.

As a police officer friend of mine once said, "I assume everyone is telling me the truth. Then I figure out whose story does not add up." But you can only do that with all the evidence, and this administration has been particularly adept at simply not providing things. Again, that does not mean he's guilty of anything. If I take him at his word, it means he's being stubborn and sticking it to the other side because he can. But is that a good enough reason for a government to act or not act? Because I can stick it to the other side?

If it is, then don't be surprised when the other side realizes it's fair game. (And don't give me the Obama was hiding everything speech too; Obama was worse than Bush at open government, but the current administration is far, far worse than both of his predecessors at it. That's an objective fact and any statement denying it is pure partisanship that is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty for Conservative government.)

But when a group of people has been consistently trying cling to any and all accusations and "Russia, Russia, Russia!" conspiracy nonsense in a desperate attempt to find something (anything!) that sticks to hang the President with, there comes a point where I will just roll my eyes and wait for the evidence. And by "evidence" I mean actual concrete "proof" rather than idle speculation from deranged people on the internet, obsessed with the man and trumpeting (pun!) out their "theories" as settled fact.

What was interesting with Russia was that the Mueller investigation found more than enough evidence to qualify as a preponderance of the evidence about Mr. Trump, and found evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for 16 of the President's staff / companions. And they were blocked by the White House from finding other evidence, and basically stated as such when asked to provide an analysis in Volume 2. The charitable way of looking at that issue would be the White House decided they didn't need to know that. The uncharitable way to look at it would be to say the White House obstructed the investigation.

Give the investigation a read. It's 600 pages, so it could take you a while, but there are free podcasts of people just reading it without commentary to listen to when you're driving somewhere (it takes about 12 hours). Most of it is pretty darn dry and only of interest to people who enjoy legal theorycrafting (like me). But there are sections that make you sit up and go, "Wait...what? Why?" and then there's no answer. Usually because the author would put something analgous to, "we were prevented from going further in this direction."

Bill Barr's summary of the investigation was... well, on this one I can't be charitable: it wasn't even factual.

EDIT: And thank you for having a peaceful and open conversation about this. Your willingness to entertain the possibility, at least in your words, is honestly appreciated.

[DocJones]

County canvassers are free to recount their county in a great number of states if that county is close to a tie. It doesn't happen much because, on the whole, it tends not to change elections.

It doesn't happen because a close tie in a county is completely and totally irrelevant to a Federal election for President.   That ought to be obvious, because such elections are decided at the State level.  In fact both Alabama and Colorado State election law says  that ALL BALLOTS IN A GIVEN CONTEST must be counted in a recount.  Can't find Alaska.
It should be blatantly obvious that no State would even write such a law that you suggested.

I can have a rule, and it stands under Bush v. Gore, where only counties where the tally was within 5% have to be recounted.

The only time it's ever been tried was by making new law by a Democrats majority Florida Supreme Court.[1]

[1] Actually I'm wrong about that.  Those 4 counties weren't even close, they were huge Gore majorities, where democrats ran the county election boards.  The hope was they could manufacture votes. 

[Spinachcat]

Trump is totally Putin's puppet! A stronger Ukraine is the numero uno priority on Russia's wish list, thus Trump's financial and military support of the Ukraine proves Trump is a Putin operative.

Meanwhile, the Bidens totally have ZERO financial ties to China and Moscow. Hunter is just a nice guy who wanders the world and totally random people give him millions of dollars for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Maybe its because Hunter's so cute!

As for Trump having "dark financial secrets", that's a big "duh!!" He made his millions in New York City construction, Atlantic City casinos and Hollywood. Those ain't gigs for saints. 

But how many Trump supporters think they're voting for a moral paragon? Zero.

Trump banged porn stars, cheated on wives, now on his 3rd marriage, thinks the Bible is a kewl book, but it would have been way kewler if Jesus had included some stock tips, loves to "Mean Tweet" like a fiend, and probably knows the East Coast Mafia better than Mario Puzo.

But somehow, Trump - who has lived ONLY a life of total pampered wealth - gets that putting America First and empowering Main Street (not just Wall Street) is the real key to American prosperity and thus, happiness.

That's why Trump fans couldn't give a shit about the "$750 in taxes!!!" screeds. We all know that EVERY millionaire and billionaire hires accountants to twist the tax code to minimize their taxes. Anybody think Pelosi or Kerry or any Democrat mega-millionaire doesn't use the best accounting firm money can buy?

The difference is this one rich dude understands that a strong middle class, not an enslaved worker class beholden to gov't subsidies, is best for everyone. It's why Elon Musk is a secret Trump supporter. He knows even his $25k cheapo Teslas ain't gonna sell in a shit economy, and Tesla sales power his galactic dreams.

[DocJones]

Maybe its because Hunter's so cute!

People always forget Joe's brothers Frank and James who also got rich off Joe's connections... err I mean their good looks.

[Delete_me]

It doesn't happen because a close tie in a county is completely and totally irrelevant to a Federal election for President. 

Stop. We seem to have a misunderstanding right here. Who do you think conducts a recount? The county canvassers. Who do you think orders one? Depending on the state, it could be the county canvasser, it could be the Secretary of State, or it could arise as an operation of law.

That ought to be obvious, because such elections are decided at the State level.  In fact both Alabama and Colorado State election law says  that ALL BALLOTS IN A GIVEN CONTEST must be counted in a recount.  Can't find Alaska.

You sure about that? Because Colorado law 1-10.5-102 absolutely would allow a recount of only specific counties in a Federal election. (I'll let you figure out which one, specifically, would qualify under that law, but that's also not the only way a recount could be authorized: there's also the Colorado Common Law. If you wish to limit it to JUST the President, there are still ways to do it legally under the common law.) (Hint: pay VERY close attention to my phrasing. It matters.)

Same for Alabama, but the procedures are a little different because Colorado does vote-by-mail. 

It should be blatantly obvious that no State would even write such a law that you suggested.

Except for all the ones who did.

The only time it's ever been tried was by making new law by a Democrats majority Florida Supreme Court.

Them and the other states who did it the right way.

[Delete_me]

Oh, and if you do want one that explicitly, word for word, authorizes what I'm talking about for a Presidential level: Texas.

(Texas Election Code § 212.131(d) allows recounts of "one or more election precincts" and less than the whole; specifically it's where a counting error has occurred and certified as such. Note the enactment date of that provision of the code: September 1st, 2001. It was voted on earlier that year. Why? Bush v. Gore.)

[Ratman_tf]

If you're basing your medical decisions on the President's body language and not the expert opinion of your doctor, you've got lots more problems than I can address here.

Ad hominem, irrelevant to the argument.

Body language is no way to determine the veracity of a person's claims. I'm attacking the argument, not the arguer. All I'll admit to is being snarky about it.

Trump made some incorrect speculations and then clumsily walked them back. He didn't tell people to "Inject Bleach" or "drink bleach", which was the headline afterwards.

Shifting the goalpost to cover up for your earlier claim being shown to be incorrect. Making it someone else's fault by showing a hysterical headline does not mean that your claim that it was about injecting UV is correct.

(EDIT: forgot the word  is.)

My claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.

[Delete_me]

Body language is no way to determine the veracity of a person's claims. I'm attacking the argument, not the arguer. All I'll admit to is being snarky about it.

Even so, still irrelevant to the argument.

My claim is that Trump never said to inject or drink bleach. Which his political opponents said he did.

Overly literal to the point absurdity. Analogous to, "I didn't say my opponent didn't kill the guy, I said he manslaughtered the guy." AND still doesn't acknowledge the UV injection claim you made, so still shifting the goalpost.