Reconciliation

[jhkim]

  people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc.   Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat.  When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections.  Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states.  All sorts of shady shit.  I can understand there will be shady shit.

In general, I agree here. Yes, some level of cheating does happen, and has always happened. Pundit takes his image from the "Gangs of New York" movie that dramatized how election cheating happened in 1862. The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

Yes, cheating happens. The question isn't whether it happens, but the degree to which it happens. Especially, how much effect are methods like ballot harvesting compared to quasi-legal methods like gerrymandering, 5-hour-long lines in some districts, etc. As was shown in 2000 in Florida, there are many ballots that are unclear or questionable, and those can be quasi-legally handled in different ways to shift the results.

The U.S. deliberately chose a system that is locally controlled. This makes it easy to cheat at the local level, but difficult to coordinate cheating at the national level. Also, cheating has little effect in non-battleground states since in voting for president, winning a state by 51% is the same as winning it by 99%.

My issue is everyone gets to vote, this IMO is bullshit.  When my kids were 3 they did not get to decide what we had for meals, cars we bought, grocery lists, etc.  They were incapable of making those decisions.  We have A LOT of people in the country that are net negative tax payers.   They get to vote/decide on matters that affect me yet they are doing ZERO regarding effort in moving society along.  I think if your life in such a state you are a net negative tax payer, you should not be allowed to vote.  This is similar to stories I see where the local news will have a story about some severely mentally handicapped person (severe mental retardations) always so happy they get to go and vote.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote?   What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?

This is a fundamental of democracy. The elite have always felt that lesser people should be ruled rather than getting a vote in government. Certainly at the time of the 15th amendment, most blacks were not net positive money makers. Likewise, at the time of the 19th amendment, most women were not net positive money makers.

The problem is that elite with the vote have the power to make it more difficult for other groups to make money - just like how when the vote was restricted to landowners, the government made it difficult for undesirables to buy land. Taking away people's rights on money will motivate laws that make it harder for the fringe to earn money.

I think the government should be motivated to make *everyone* as informed and capable as possible.

[Ratman_tf]

  people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc.   Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat.  When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections.  Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states.  All sorts of shady shit.  I can understand there will be shady shit.

In general, I agree here. Yes, some level of cheating does happen, and has always happened. Pundit takes his image from the "Gangs of New York" movie that dramatized how election cheating happened in 1862. The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

For the same reason that people who never before had an especial beef with Trump suddenly were coming out of the woodwork to call him the Cheeto Mussolini, or Orange Hitler. Trump was an outsider, and the people who voted for him believed that his presidency was a ray of hope that The System wasn't impenetrable. That voting could actually make a difference. The 2020 election was effectivley a slap-down of that idea.

[Bruwulf]

The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.

[jhkim]

The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

But I don't think that's the case. The level of claims and action regarding cheating in the 2020 election is markedly different than in past elections. Especially in close elections, it's often been the case that the losing side protests and the opposing side decries such protests. Still, in past elections, the losing candidate has always conceded before Jan 6, for example.

[Trond]

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.

That was a different kind of cheating 😉

[Bruwulf]

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

We spent four years hearing, almost every single day, that Trump was a Russian plant, that Russian hacking got him elected, that Trump was sucking Putin's cock, you name it. It was a daily drone, like the most obnoxious set of bagpipes on earth.

Four years.

No. Nothing Trump has done or said stands out as particularly different than what was already being said.

[Eirikrautha]

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

We spent four years hearing, almost every single day, that Trump was a Russian plant, that Russian hacking got him elected, that Trump was sucking Putin's cock, you name it. It was a daily drone, like the most obnoxious set of bagpipes on earth.

Four years.

No. Nothing Trump has done or said stands out as particularly different than what was already being said.

It's like jhkim has never heard of Stacy Abrams, who has been claiming the election was stolen from her long before 2020.  But, of course, he has.  You will find that jhkim frequently can find some miniscule irrelevance that proves convincingly that when his side does it, it's totally different (while later declaring that your assertions of difference are negligible compared to the overall similarities).  It's a pretty regular pattern...

[Ratman_tf]

The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

But I don't think that's the case. The level of claims and action regarding cheating in the 2020 election is markedly different than in past elections. Especially in close elections, it's often been the case that the losing side protests and the opposing side decries such protests. Still, in past elections, the losing candidate has always conceded before Jan 6, for example.

It's not required for a candidate to conceed. It's a political nicety, but then Trump wasn't elected to be a quiet, polite candidate.
Personally, I find these concession speeches jarring. After accusing their opponent of being a heinous monster, a candidate then does a heel-turn and gets all congratulatory. At least, it's a reminder to me that politicans are all greasy scumbags who are not to be trusted.

[Bruwulf]

It's not required for a candidate to conceed. It's a political nicety, but then Trump wasn't elected to be a quiet, polite candidate.
Personally, I find these concession speeches jarring. After accusing their opponent of being a heinous monster, a candidate then does a heel-turn and gets all congratulatory. At least, it's a reminder to me that politicans are all greasy scumbags who are not to be trusted.

Concession speeches make sense under the old model. The old model was, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, we all at least paid lip service to the idea we were all in this together, working towards a common goal. We might disagree on how to get there, but we all wanted a strong, healthy country with prosperous, happy people.

That hasn't been true for a while. Now everyone views the Other Guy as the enemy, not the opposition party. Under that model, you're right, the concession speech seems fake.

I mean, think of the common sentiments that used to be expressed in them. "My opponent ran a good race" - nope, today everyone is very quick to condemn the Other Guy's campaign. "The people have spoken" - again, nope. Now we say the people have been cheated. Or the wrong people spoke. "I know he'll do the job with honor and integrity" - hah!

No, they really don't make much sense. Now they should just be called surrender speeches.

[oggsmash]

    Keep letting useless booger eaters decide the direction of society and you end up with a useless booger eater society.  Enjoy that.  Democracy is NOT and NEVER was the intent of the structure of the United States government and its operation.  Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.  Just as choices in immigration were (bring people who stand on their own and not legions of people on public assistance) for GOOD REASON.  40 more years and the USA is officially shit hole.  Manly republics give way to feminine democracy that inevitably become failed tyrannies. 

[oggsmash]

  "Democracy" also means jack shit if the government is allowed to import voters EN MASSE who will vote in a manner that is largely not the best for natives in a nation.  "Democracy" as tossed around by petty tyrants with no goal past "winning" is just to make sure the numbers work out in their favor and they run ruthless and never ending marketing, propaganda, and "activism" programs to see their will done.   I do hope I live long enough to see this blow up.  I can at least roast some marsh mellows on the ashes of a destroyed society.

[Bruwulf]

Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.

[Eirikrautha]

Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.

Your example belies your assertion.  That redneck isn't moving.  His kids will grow up there.  He has an incentive to care about that community, and is more likely to vote for a candidate who pledges to keep the government out of his business.  Your doctor can end the lease at any point, bail on whatever mess he voted for in that community, and take his gay lover to Cazumel to live in retirement.  More importantly, the people you didn't mention in your examples, the welfare queen or bum, would also lose their ability to vote themselves more of our money, which more than makes up for the issues it might cause for hypothetical renters...

[oggsmash]

Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.

  It sure isnt, but it is a damn good start. I would say you also gave me zero information that makes that same redneck a WORSE voter than the cosmopolitan doctor (who probably endorsed any propaganda Phizer fed him).  I dont care to make perfect the enemy of good, but allowing people to vote for a system that seems to exist simply to support them while contributing NOTHING to said system...is a sure recipe for disaster.   That doctor may well be able to afford a house/condo of his own in the city if housing prices were not driven through the roof by massive amounts of "affordable" housing that is heavily or completely subsidized by the tax payer.   Considering how many "refugees" we are now packing into "affordable" housing and driving costs ever higher for people who actually pay their own way.....not so certain how your example refutes anything and instead is introducing another symptom to the problems "mah democracy" has created.

[Bruwulf]

Your example belies your assertion.  That redneck isn't moving.  His kids will grow up there.  He has an incentive to care about that community, and is more likely to vote for a candidate who pledges to keep the government out of his business.  Your doctor can end the lease at any point, bail on whatever mess he voted for in that community, and take his gay lover to Cazumel to live in retirement. 

I hate to tell you, but people move all the time. In my adult life I've rented once and owned property twice, in two different states. Most of my friends have similar histories. My father lived in like a dozen places before I was born - he moved around the country in the military, then worked in the private sector and moved multiple times for that job, too.

You don't know that the redneck has kids, or will ever have kids. You don't know if he gives two shits about his community - spoiler, a lot of them don't.

Statistically he's more likely to vote republican, perhaps, but its but it's by no means a sure thing - a lot of rednecks either are themselves or were raised by blue collar union types, particularly around here - the legacy of coal miners and such - and they often vote Democrat.

And, for the record, there are gay rednecks, and plenty of straight doctors with big families. Stop trying to conflate your issues.

More importantly, the people you didn't mention in your examples, the welfare queen or bum, would also lose their ability to vote themselves more of our money, which more than makes up for the issues it might cause for hypothetical renters...

"Hypothetical renters"? They aren't hypothetical. There's a ton of them. Cities are full of renters who are absolutely not "welfare queens" or "bums", and while that may disenfranchise the group of people you want to disenfranchise, because fuck cities, that's not finding any virtue in land ownership verses renting. And on the flip side of cities, there are "welfare queens" and other "net negative" types in rural areas that still manage to own land through one means or another. And outside of, like... LA and San Francisco, I'm not convinced the population of homeless bums is significant enough to worry about any effect on elections.